Template talk:Communism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
October 2004 — June 2005

Contents 1 Council Communism 2 schools of communism 3 remove brackets 4 Religious Communism 5 TfD nomination of Template:Template:Communism 6 A few things 7 TfD nomination of Template:Communism 8 Do not violate the 3RR 9 Stalinism 10 Proposal 11 SIZE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE 12 The Communism Box on the Historical Materialism page looks like 13 No school of.. 14 edit war 15 Autonomist Marxism? 16 Hammer and Sickle 17 ICC? 18 Communism Side Bar 19 Unprotect? 20 Communist States 21 New Communsim 22 Important persons 23 Why is there a section for communist states? 24 Joseph Stalin missing? 25 Image 26 Balance of template? 27 Proposal for make-over of template

[edit] Council Communism

why did we remove council communism?

I too would like to know why Council Communism was removed. I think it is a more valid as a "school" of communism than Left Communism is. Left Communism is more of an umbrella term for council communism, bordigism, etc. I suggeest that Left Communism be moved under the Related Subjects heading. Seeing as Juche and so on aren't under the Schools.. heading I am more moveable on the issue of Council Communism. However, if there are no objections I will be moving Left Communism soon. --Saboteur 11:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Juche is the Communist ideology which governs 23 million people. Surely in this aspect it is more important than Trotskyism. Marxism, Leninism, Maoism and Juche are all of the current governing ideologies of Communist theory and should be the four retained.

we can keep on like this for all eternity. 'juche' is not a 'school of communism', it is not a distinct ideological trend. It is an interprentation (or is claimed to be) of m-l in Korean context. Thus it cannot be replicated outside Korea. There are load of 'national interpretations' of marxism around, we can't really list them all. Trotskyism is (although I have no sympathy for it) a significant historical trend in the international communist movement. Also, is Maoism a governing ideology today? If so where? The People's Republic of Mars? --Soman 22:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Juche is seperate from Marxism-Leninism. North Korea claims it is a completely new and revolutionary Communist ideology, making it seperate from Marxism-Leninism as it is not based on materialism. Juche is an ideology within Communism, certainly larger than Trotskyism which has never lead any nation on earth. Marxism, Leninism and Maoism all lead nations today. The People's Republic of China is lead by the Communist Party of China which claims Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory as it's guiding ideas and states so in their constitution. Vietnam, Laos and Cuba claim Marxism-Leninism with Vietnam also claiming Ho Chi Minh's Thought. Juche has many study groups abroad and I could easily argue is not merely a nation-Korean ideology, but can be applied and possibly even was applied elsewhere (Romania).

Has been applied elsewhere? So basically its just about personality cultism? The 'Juche Study Groups' here and there basically fill two functions 1) providing trips to North Korea for people who like to get formal receptions on their vacations and 2) mobilizing against imperialism, through the belief that strengthening North Korea weakens imperialism. Nowhere (with the exception of a minimal one-man sect in Costa Rica) has these Juche Study Groups or Korea Friendship societies led to formations of distinct political parties. In sharp contrast to erstwhile China or Albania friendship societies.

Moreover the template is already to state-centered. Most of the articles featuring the Template relate to the history and development of the communist movement. Within that context Juche is a fringe phenomena, whereas Trotskyism (as well as Left Communist, Maoism, etc.) plays a central role. The Trotsky-Stalin split played a crucial role in shaping the character of the international communist movement (even in North Korea). Futhermore, Maoism as an ideological construct has virtually nothing to do with current Chinese government practice. The fact that portraits of Mao are still around doesn't really change that. --Soman 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Juche is an ideology that governs 23 Million people, Trotskyism governs 0. Juche should be included before Trotskyism is, though my preference is to have them both represented there. Maoism is an ideology and pictures do not make it. The current Chinese government has never denounced Mao Zedong Thought and follows an interpretation of it. Prove to me where Maoism has been abandoned in China. 1.3 billion people live in a government that claims Mao Zedong Thought as a guiding idea.

also, I'd like to note that no government has adopted Mao Zedong Thought except the People's Republic of China, so if Juche is not included, neither should Maoism. I would advise the return of Juche, Council Communism among others.

I disagree that Juche should be included. It represents a state ideology that was instituted after the revolution. It did not lead to North Korea proclaiming itself communist. Maoism, on the other hand, is a theory that had a major effect on the chinese communist movement from the 1920's through to Mao's death. In addition to this, much like trotskyism, maoism has had a significant effect on the far left. This includes, but is by no means limited to, the New Left movement.

Juche, as far as I'm concerned, can stay off the template for the time being.

I would also like to add that the template, as a whole, is essentially useless and poorly organised, and I favor a major overhaul. Perhaps dividing it and making a Schools of Communism template on it's own would solve some problems. At least then we could include a number of fringe movements and subcategories. It would indeed be more thorough and helpful. --Saboteur 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with making it a seperate category. I say that Trotskyism has guided no state on earth, it has not even taken major flight anywhere for a long period of time. Juche guides 23 million people and there are major claims that the ideas of Juche, while not being called Juche, were a major part of Kim's theories from 1931 until the liberation.

Please, please, sign your posts. Otherwise it becomes almost impossible for outsiders to see whom was written what. Trotskyism was, well a major tendecy in the early Soviet Union. Trotsky is very well able to size power in USSR, and his tendecy is politically relevant since it is a division from the original Bolshevik movement. It is not a regional exotic oddity.

Moreover, Trotskyists have played important roles in several points in history, like in Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Brazil. Anyone with a knowledge of British Labour affairs around 80s know the Militant group. And in France trotskyists got 10% of the votes in the second-last presidential elections. Trotskyist are represented in parliaments in Brazil, Denmark, Portugal, Sri Lanka, etc..

As per "Juche in 1931" its just a postconstruct by a machine of propaganda. Kim's politics in 1931 were the ones ordered by Moscow. --Soman 22:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] schools of communism

-> (trotskism and maoism) are leninists currents. -> I added council communism --193.248.99.144 09:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

And I'm keeping it in. It deserves to be there. --Saboteur 06:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Left Communism (a concept which, amongst other things, include Council Communism) is already included. Left Communism played some sort of a role in the far left in the 1920-30s and regionally in Italy during 1968, but on a whole seen over the last century its a marginal tendency. It does not deserve two separate links on the template. If so, there are numerous other tendencies we could include, such as Posadism. --Soman 08:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Left communism is hardly included. Besides, it's an umbrella term that has no relevence in the "schools..." section. I now strongly urge we consider placing Council Communism back in the "Schools of Communism". As many have said, and I fully agree, Leninism is by no means the be all, end all of communism.

I don't entirely agree with you. Sure, left communism has never "ruled a nation" or anything like that, and it has never strived for it either. But it has been quite influential, and not only in Italy during the first half of the century. The situationists where influenced by left communism, and so were large parts of the italian and french -68 movements. Today, most of the advanced communist theory comes from groups affiliated with left communism (I don't think that marxism-leninism has produced any theory at all the last 50 years), and many interesting new projects are more or less built on left communist theory. But ironicly, left communism has probably held more influence over the anarchist movement than the traditional marxist movement, even though left communism is a marxist tradition (and probably the one closest to Marx' original ideas).

Historically, marxism-leninism has been a much more "important" tradition than left communism, but not today. We have to weight "importans 50 years ago" against "importans today".

If something should be removed its rather "christian communism". Really, have christian communism held any influence at all since the middle of the 19th century?

81.227.86.149 10:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Juche should definitely be added, Juche guides the lives of 23 million people, more than Trotskyism, Left Communism or many others listed ever have or known adherants to these ideologies. Juche has been applied actively in North Korea and was the model for Nicolae Ceausescu's Romania and arguably had some influence in the practices of Democratic Kampuchea. Hence, as an ideology which currently is at the head of one nation and massively influenced 2 others and is declared as a "New and Revolutionary" ideology, different than and surperior to Marxism-Leninism, it should be added somewhere in, possibly below Titoism or take the place of Christian Communism, which has had little to no influence for about 150 years.

[edit] remove brackets

The brackets just look confusing. I urge their removal. --Soman 09:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Communism

Religious communism is another lousy umbrella term. If where puting religious communism in schools of thought, then we'd put Council Communism in with Left Communism, and the rest in with Marxism-Leninism. That's a really stupid idea. Besides, I don't think any religious communism is a school of thought. It's all based on interpretation of the scriptures. (But that isn't my main point, so don't just respond to that). --Saboteur 21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also sceptical to including it, and I'd wish a consensu be reached. IMHO, the template ought to be limited to the modern Marxian ideological tradition, and exclude pre-Marxian variations that might for some historical reason carry the same name. --Soman 21:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be heavily systemically biased towards Marx. Religious organisations, if not anarchist organisations (although anarchist communism is currently not listed as a school but that is tolerable), we are tracing the development of communism after all: and Marxism is just another fork, that spawns forks in itself, in communist ideology. Religious communism is a school of thought, because it asserts that certain religions in general (from Buddhism to Islam to Christianity) mix well with communist ideals. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we shouln't limit the template to Marxist schools, and I'm all for Communist Anarchism being included, but I still don't see Religious communism as a school of thought. In any event, the article itself isn't much. Considering that there are many schools that should be included but have been removed because of issues over the length of the template, the article should be substantially improved before it could be included anyway. --Saboteur 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The main criteria for inclusion of a certain school is not the length and quality of the relevant article, but the historical importance of that school (if the Marxism article was really short and badly written, could we exclude Marxism? hardly). Religious communism is an important school - or current, or whatever you wish to call it - and therefore should be included. Historically speaking, it is in fact the original form of communism. By the way, the length of the template is not an issue here, because we're not talking about adding anything, we're just talking about moving stuff from related subjects to schools of communism. For the record, I'd support moving Left Communism and Anarchist Communism into the schools section too. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It doesn't matter about the quality of the article. What matters is that it's an umbrella term a number of different utopian religious movements based around communes and the like. It is not a school of thought. There is no school of though wanting religious communists. There are only Christian communists, Buddhist communists, Jewish communists, etc. Do you see what I'm saying? --Saboteur 06:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the word "schools" to something more along the lines of "branches" or "varieties"? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Template:Communism

Template:Communism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Communism. Thank you.

Nomination seems to be non-existent. Removing notice. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few things

There appears to be a bit of an edit war going on on this template. May I ask what is being warred over? I'm trying to determine whether I should lock the template up and force people to talk, or whether there is already talk ongoing.

Also, a message above this says that this has been submitted to TfD, yet I see no entry on the TfD page. What is going on here? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Communism

Template:Communism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Communism. Thank you.

The template seems to have survived the TfD, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_16#Template:Communism --Alvin-cs ✉ 18:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not violate the 3RR

The next violator will be blocked, though it will not be by me. Despite me having my own stance on the issue, discuss the dispute here please, I won't hesitate to report 3RR violations on any of the editors here, regardless of what I think. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This is it. Discuss any further changes here. I am trying to be as impartial as possible, but aggravating the dispute isn't helping. Discussion is obviously needed. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that the edit war has ceased may I know when will the template be unprotected for editing again? I simply can't stand the wrong ordering of Trotskyism · Maoism <br> Stalinism -- surely it ought to be either Stalinism · Trotskyism <br> Maoism (in chronological order) or Stalinism · Maoism <br> Trotskyism (in order of influence). --Pkchan 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Very well, it will be unprotected. Now I hope the rest of you can do it civilly.

[edit] Stalinism

Stalinism is clearly not a school of communism. Anyone who has read and comprehended the Stalinism page would agree. So how about we start on that. --Saboteur 09:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

As a non-Communist, I cannot agree either that the page says that, or that it ought to. The CPSU certainly did, for some years, claim to be following the teachings of Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin; and it is not Wikipedia's business to say that they were wrong. We must discuss under Communism everyone who claimed to be there, and not only those who (by someone's standards, even mine) ought to be there. Septentrionalis 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Saboteur, while I see your point I don't think it's appropriate for wikipedia to judge that Stalinism is not a school of communism at all. Remember that wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, and so if there is a signficant portion of the world who would associate Stalinism as a branch of Communism then we have to respect that and describe Stalinism as thus. Surely you may go edit the Stalinism page and point out its departure from Communism -- in a NPOV, it goes without saying -- but Stalinism shall remain on this template. --Pkchan 17:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Kindly resolve this without resorting to a revert war. If you want, perhaps we can have an RFC on the issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's a means of facilitating rational discussion on this topic, then perhaps RfC is what we should go for now. Edit warring is one of the last things I'd like to have here. --Pkchan 04:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

I saw this on TfD and thought maybe I'd make a proposal (in any case I will be removing it soon since it is a good candidate for speedy keep with the overwhelming opinions there). I believe we could cut down the size and the arguments by having pages like Schools of communism (Branches of communism if you'd prefer). We could remove links to the individual schools from the template which make it needlessly large. The same goes for parties. On the main pages the prominent schools and parties will be listed first since there are obviously some of greater importance. It would cut down size and maybe help quell some of the arguments. gren グレン ^? 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a reasonable proposal, although it will drastically slow down the use of the template for navigation. I don't care that much, but others may. Septentrionalis 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIZE IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE

Sorry for the caps, but this needed to be said and all users need to become aware of it. I'll even say it again: Size is no longer an issue. It was an issue many months ago when the template aimed to include every former Communist state and every communist thinker or leader, but those are long gone. Right now, the communism template is much shorter than several others. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Communism Box on the Historical Materialism page looks like

an ad box on Google. It seems to me that "communisim" ought to be listed as a related subject rather than highlighted as the apotheosis of historical materialism. If the word "change" is substituted for the word "progress," historical materialism makes a good deal of sense as a theory of understanding many but not all past human events. Its usefulness is limited to that of a tool for understanding the past. It is not a prescription for determining the future. Communism as it was experienced in the twentieth century and continues to be experienced in the twenty first is proof of that.

The Peoples Republic of China has been a capitalist nation since the death of Mao Zedong.

I'm sorry, but what does this have to do with anything?. The template is on that page because historical materialism is a related subject of communism, not the other way around.

Again, can we try being constructive and at least agree on Stalinism not being in the schools section? --Saboteur 08:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No school of..

Kropotkins ideas/theorys are part of anarchism. It is in the line of antiautory socialism, not in the line of any school of communism. In political-science contexts it isn't a "school of communism". I take the anarchist communism to related subjects.--82.83.105.40 09:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article on antiauthority socialism. We have libertarian socialism, but then anarchist communism is a branch of libertarian socialism, but being libertarian at the same time does not disqualify it from being communist. "Anarchist communism" perfectly complies with the definition of "schools of communism" here, advocating a communalist, anarchist state (which is what communism effectively is). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In anarchist communism"state" is abolished/destroyed. Communism isn't a kind of anarchism. That thoght would be wrong at all. In the center of a communist thoght/theory is not the stateslessnes(right word?), the greater aspect is the harmonic end of explotation and so on. That's not the same like destroy-the-state-and-then-there-is a-harmonic-society-thoght (anarchism). For example in marxism theory in the end the state dies... In science anarchist communism is Libertarism.Anarchist communis is libritäry communalism. Anarchist communism is a school of anarchism. It resembles the "antiautority socialsm" Ideas by Bakunin, that's i mean with "in the line of". Anarchist communism by Kropotkin was creat after the split in workers-movement. If the society in the end "effectively" is the same, like you said, doesn't make the theorys to the same schols of.. .--82.83.86.165 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The emphasis of communism is collectivism, yes, but communists generally recognise a stateless society as an ideal. Leninsm sees the need for an intermediary socialist state (state socialism), but many communists do not see it that way. Communism and anarchism were really originally synonyms, just that Lenin begin to emphasise the "commun" root, but ironically the concept of "commune" was destroyed because of his revolution. The theories of what espouse the final state are roughly similar, the theories of how it is implemented is not. It still is communist. It is merely two sides of the same coin, like electricity and magnetism in electromagnetism (pardon the allegory). Many people consider communism and anarchism the same thing, and come into conflict with authoritarian communists; in fact there is a division within the Marxist movement itself concerning the use of authority, there are libertarian Marxists. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You said, (at template disc):"Leninsm sees the need for an intermediary socialist state (state socialism), but many communists do not see it that way. Communism and anarchism were really originally synonyms, just that Lenin begin to emphasise the "commun" root, but ironically the concept of "commune" was destroyed because of his revolution "-

That means before lenin everybody means that communism and anarchism were synonyms. That's not true. Marx and many other communists don't like the anarchist way to emphasis the destruction of the state. They are feared of useless and absurd destructive mania. And the anarchists don't think so. That was the reason of the split of socialist movement.

The "stateless society" weren't a communist ideal alone. It is not in center of communist theory, but it 's a part of it. An intermdiary socialist state is not the idea of Lenin. It 's the idea of marx first. Lenin refered to this Marx-idea.

You could say that Lenin betray the ideas of marx; but not the ideas of the anarchists, because they have not the same ideas/"commun" concept/theory like marx. Or you could say that marx betray the other socialists and the "socialist" concept of "commune", in theoretical way.

After Lenin and his revolution and before Lenin: Anarchism (anarchism by Bakunin, anarchist communism, mutualism,...) and communism (marxism..., Weitling-communism (it 's not the same like marxism),....earlierer kinds of- Other communists exists, but they are not "anarchist-communists"-) don't were synonyms for the same. The terms have history, yes. But we are not in the 16 th century. There was much history ago, and the terms are not the same like in in the middleages, because these theorys were create later. And Bakunin and so on aren't communists at their times and aren't today.

You said (at template disc.page):"The theories of what espouse the final state are roughly similar, the theories of how it is implemented is not. It still is communist. It is merely two sides of the same coin,"-

The final society, not "state".

Yes, similar NOT the same.

The ideologys of Communism and Anarchism don't mean exactly the same. We have two articles here, " communism" and "anarchism". But they are in the same family. The term/"familyname" (or "the same coin") of anarchism and communism is "socialism" not "communism". (-collectivism is emphasesed by communism and by almost all schools of anarchism, but i dont't mentioned it in my post. -template disc)

Political science is another thing (and more complicated) like naturel science, i think:

"Libertary marxists", dont heard about that..(template disc page). Marx were didn't like that term, i think. "marxism" is "marxism", and not libertary, he would say .We don't´have these article. But there is council communism (yes there is some positiv reationship even to Marx), that 's another thing.

Noam Chomsky said that schools of communism and schools of anarchism are the same thing, you discripe. He is a professor of linguistics, and he is more a political reader (anarcho-syndiikalist) than a political scientist. Anarchists and communists (not marxism only) are both kinds of socialists/Socialism,yes. We have article to Anarchism and we have article to communism, that's not totally the same. Kropotkin is called anarchist(radical libertarian) if he wants or not. We have theorys and we have terms and we have to differented it and to make understandable that and to put in order that.--82.83.90.203 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to object. Marx perception of the first stage of communism is actually quite far from Lenin's perception of "socialism". For Lenin, the first phase of communism (which he calls socialism) means that the working class takes power over the existing process of production through a [workers-) state. For Marx the first phase of communism is something completly different. For Marx, this phase is identical to the free association of producers, the abolition of the divsion between producers and means of production, the abolition of the property relations as such.

For Marx there is no such thing as a communist stage with a state, commodity production or wage labour.

And it is also pretty clear that Marx abandoned the view on the state that he expressed in the manifesto for a more radical position. In some of his later works about the Paris Commune he clearly pointed out that the the working class can not use the state for their own goals, and that the state must be obliterated. This view is also presented in the later prefaces of the manifesto.

And anyway, it's 2006 not 1906. Marxism and anarchism have both developed over the last hundred years. Marxism and anarchism is quite intwined now a days, really most anarchists read Marx and most marxists read at least some anarchists. Even though we have differences we still have more in common. We all strive for a class- and stateless society without private property, wage labour and commodity production. And I can also point out that, people from social democrats to jucheists calls themselves marxists. Haha! Really, I think almost all marxists feel that they have more in common with atleast some anarchists than many so called "marxists". :)

I don't really know if I like the term "school of communism". Communism is no ideology or theory or the like. Communism is a material movement. But if we should have a template called "school of communism", marxist schools and anarchist schools should both be included. Should we on the other hand create templates called "schools of marxism" and "schools of anarchism", the different anarchist communisms would fit in the later.

81.227.86.149 09:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit war

Protected again. Surely, compromise can be reached? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've edited forth the changes that are presented in the current version. All I did was to change the place of left communism and titoism since left communism is a school of communism while titoism is a related subject, and not the opposite.

I also did another minor change and changed the "world revolution" link to a "international communist current" linke, since WR only is the british section of the ICC. I guess it's better to link to the entire party and not just the british section?

Okay, I will unprotect this page in 24 hours. However, all further edits should have a qualified edit summary, be improvements, not conflicts, any edits that undoes another editor's changes should be discussed before being implemented, otherwise I will reprotect again. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autonomist Marxism?

Should autonomist marxism be included? It's quite well spread now a days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.227.86.149 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Hammer and Sickle

Shouldn't this image be removed as the "symbol" of communism? This is the symbol of the USSR, not communism. Using it as the symbol gives a direct correlation between Russia and the true definition of communism, which many people (such as myself) would argue against (that Russia didn't even come close to true communism). Shouldn't there be a more appropriate picture to represent communism rather than Russia, like a picture of Marx, perhaps? iNaNimAtE 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The hammer & sickle is the most universal symbol of communism. It is used by most communist parties around the world. --Soman 09:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

How about the red star? --Ajlandin 16:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Red Army != communism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I still say it is racist against my homeland and shall remove it again up to 2 times per day.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lord fabs (talk • contribs).

First of all, you're the only person who ever made the ridiculous claim that the hammer and sickle is somehow "racist". Second, there is no wikipedia policy banning racist symbols. See the Nazism template, for example, which contains a swastika. If you want "racist symbols" banned, go and propose an official policy. But until such a policy is adopted, please leave this template alone. -- Nikodemos 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ICC?

How comes there a link to ICC? Isn't there thousands of communist organizations with more political relevance than ICC? --Soman 16:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communism Side Bar

Under the list of communist countries, the East Bloc as well as Yugoslavia and Albania are not on it, as it is protected, could someone please fix this?

[edit] Unprotect?

There isn't any real discussion or debate here, so why is the page still protected? At least downgrade it to semi-protect so established users can edit it. The Ungovernable Force 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Any admin, please either somewhat unprotect or add zh:Template:Communism.--Jusjih 15:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communist States

This section should be divided into two sections: Current and Defunct. Under defunct could come all the former Communist republics affiliated to the Soviet Union.

Belarus could probably come under Current: they operate a Command economy, as much industry and commerce is state owned today as was in the Soviet Union times, and their leader Lukashenko is an open admirer of the USSR.

Do not include Belarus. It's a Soviet-style regime for sure. But the country is not formally under Communist Party rule, so Belarus is not a Communist state in the technical sense. 172 | Talk 13:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Communsim

Clearly we should add a link to New Communism. It is a seprit idea and believe to the other fare left schools of Communism because of it's Nationalist characteristics and ideas. I did put a link to the site in the box but it moved can you pleas tell me why. It should be put back because it is very diffrent. It is also clear why it is diffrent and called "New" Communsim. I my self is a New Communist. I have also wrote a article about the topic under Marxism --PETER THE GREAT 05:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important persons

i think that Imre Nagy should be added. as he was important in the Hungarian revolution of 1956 and so should Mátyas Rákosi (who invented salami tactics) and Béla Kun (who started the first communist state in Hungary). and fnally Ceasescu who created a somewhat independent form of communism.

[edit] Why is there a section for communist states?

When you look at the article on communism, it says "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a future classless, stateless social organization", so the idea of a communist state would be an oxymoron, no? -NorsemanII 05:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No. There's a gulf between ideology and practice. •Jim62sch• 11:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a gulf between what are vulgarly called communist states (the practice, improperly called as such), and the ideology. It should be obvious that calling a state communist doesn't make it so, even if large numbers of uneducated people think so, and claim as much. If I call the US a communist state, how do you know whether or not I'm telling the truth? You look at what the word communist means, and whether or not the US matches that definition. The US has a state, and classes, so it's not communist. Any state is in contradiction with communism, so, to be academically correct, there should be no list of communist states. Perhaps lists of self-proclaimed communist states, or states accused of being communist, but not a list of communist states. That's like having a list of gaseous solids. -NorsemanII 01:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also a gulf between officious academic rigidity and practice. Yes, you are correct that technically the concept of a "communist state" is a contradiction given the stated ideology of communism. However it is practice, not ignorance or lack of education, that shows that the reality and theory of any political ideology rarely meet. •Jim62sch• 08:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not talking about the reality and theory of a political ideology, nor is this a technicality. We're talking about the reality, and defintion of a political ideology, which is a huge difference. If I say X (a type of state) = Y (its definition), and say that Z (a state) = X, but Z != Y, then I am contradicting myself. I can't say that I have found a communist state if communism is by definition stateless, just as I cannot say that I have found a gaseous solid, if solidity is contradictory to gaseousness. It's not a technicality, either: the word "stateless" doesn't have any meaning or usage that allows you to have a state anyway, so there is no way it can be a technicality. It's simply false, and every bit as wrong to use in an encylopedia as my gaseous solid example. -NorsemanII 08:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please put your dudgeon in low gear. And skip the lectures. •Jim62sch• 09:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I have added "he stated matter-of-factly."? It's difficult to convey tone in writing, unless you're doing that explicitly. Lectures, however, I am doing, and I won't stop. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not wikiality as decided by popular uneducated opinion. When wikipedia starts to contradict itself, as it has in this case, I think we can all agree that that's a very serious problem which needs to be analyzed and corrected. -NorsemanII 09:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And precisely at whom is this little gem directed, "...not wikiality as decided by popular uneducated opinion"? One hopes it is a general statement. •Jim62sch• 21:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is. Look, whenever I say something, just I assume I ended the statement with "he stated matter-of-factly". There are no special inflections or hidden meanings in anything I've said here. If there are, I'll tag them somehow, like this. Twice you seemed to indicate a certain dislike for being academically correct "...skip the lectures." and "There is also a gulf between officious academic rigidity...", so I made the point that academic rigidity is what should be on wikipedia, "...not wikiality as decided by popular uneducated opinion". I don't know anything about your education, for all I know, you could be a professor of communist philosophy. What I do know is you are at least aware of the problem of calling something a communist state, and that you seem to be arguing that this problem should continue because academic rigidity is somehow bad. Thus, I made the case that wikipedia should not be wikiality, and that we should have academic rigidity instead. "He stated matter-of-factly" -NorsemanII 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, you misread what I was saying...if I felt strongly that "Communist States" needed to be in the template I'd have argued vociferously, but as I did not, you can take that to mean that I actually do agree with you. Given the celerity with which you reverted the change (which was in itself a revert) I wanted to discern your reasoning. Yes, it was an experiment of sorts -- a hold-over from my college days where I was a poli-sci major.

In any case, it is apparent that I misread you as well, and took exception to the lecturing, from which I drew too many inferences. Peace. •Jim62sch• 23:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Stalin missing?

Why is Stalin and Stalinism missing completley from this list? Stalin and Stalinism are quite notable in history, if not moreso then Trotskyism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.240.31.67 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 30 November 2006.

Stalinism is socialism, not communism. Note the practice of Socialism in One Country, emphasis on the word socialism, the presence of a state (which contradicts with the communist practice of statelessness), and the presence of a class system (where Stalin, like a super-bourgeoise, owned all the means of production personally) which contradicts with the communist practice of classlessness. Stalinism is quite notable in history, but it's not notable as being communist. Stalinism is far more accurately described as a socialist dictatorship verging on fascism. -NorsemanII 01:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Trotskyism, Stalinism and Leninism are all movements inside the Communist Movement, and all of them are socialist regimes. If the presence of a state contradicts the Communist movement, then neither Trotsky nor Lenin are communists. Kim Il Sung was a socialist dictator with a Communist ideology. Pol Pot was a communist dictator with a post-Communist and ultra-maoist ideology. It's just an opinion that Stalin owned all the means of production personally. I can say "the presence of a class system (where Fidel Castro, like a super-bourgeoise, owned all the means of production personally". Then Fidel Castro is not a communist. What's the difference between Lenin and Stalin then? Why define Stalin like a super-capitalist and not like a super-feudalist? Capitalism works like a class system, but not any class system is capitalist. The marxism defines a class by the origin of his rent. In the case of the Soviet Union, everybody have the same origin for his rent: salary. There is no inequality based upon private accumulation of capital, and to enhance the production does not benefit the bureaucratic income. The Soviet Union (Leninist or Stalinist) was a socialist system, and their inequalities determined by the political power. If those inequalities are fair or unfair it doesn't matter. They don't determine the difference between socialism and communism. Joseph Stalin was a Communist like Lenin was a Communist. We're doomed as marxists if the communist or socialist condition of a regime depends on the volutarism of our judgement of the political manipulations of just one person (Stalin in this case). The proletarian dictatorship doesn't exist from the beginning and the historical materialism have no sense if the leader can use their political power in order to create an entire social class. Jouvenel 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

As noted there are differences of opinion on which image to be used in the template. That the hammer & sickle ought to be used was settled long ago, but I prefer Image:Hammernsickleredonwhite.PNG as opposed to Image:Hammer and sickle.svg, primarily became since the template has a white background. Propose a poll here below. --Soman 08:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balance of template?

Why is there no balancing of the content of the template? In the 'schools' section 5 (Left communism, Autonomist Marxism, Council communism, Anarchist communism, Luxemburgism) represent marginal tendencies (and in many ways, variations of the same tendency of thought), whereas there is no link to Marxism-Leninism or Maoism. 'Communist Workers International' is included, inspite of being a marginal historical phenomenon. In the notable communists section, Mansoor Hekmat is included but not Mao Zedong. Karl Korsch is included but not Ho Chi Minh. Why not rename the template to 'Left Communism' overall? --Soman 08:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Balance between what and what ? That's the problem.

The fact is that your version contains a lot less information. You deleted every historic communist organisations, most of the "Schools" (this word should be changed), etc. Plus people that hadn't written anything consistent. --Inbloom2 16:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The balance between the mainstream of the communist movement and a grouping of historically rather unsignificant tendencies (left com, council com, anarc com, luxemburgs, autonomists). Also, do note that this is not the Marxist theory template (there is a separate such template), but the communism template. Stalin and Mao were clearly, after Lenin, the most influencial figures in the world communist movement. Pannekoek was, well, not. --Soman 07:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You want stalinism to be represented instead of communism ? Communism is a theory that has never been achieved. The main relationship between Stalin and communisqm is that he killed over 100.000 communists. --Inbloom2 11:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, here you show your own POV. This a template for articles on communism and the communist movement. Regardless of how you feel towards Stalin he was one of the most influencial figures of the communist movement of 20th century (also forming the ideology of its mainstream). It becomes a little bit like saying that the Pope isn't Christian (which some hardcore protestants might feel and argue). --Soman 11:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The pope was elected, didn't kill thousands of christians, and didn't rule an anti-christian state.

There is no reason at all to erase what you don't like in the template, to put berlinger, so on... --Inbloom2 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for make-over of template

Check out User:Soman/Template:Communism. --Soman 09:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I vehemently disagree, on the grounds that it slashes many important issues. I am not opposed to revamping the template, but we would do well to follow the examples set by other political ideology templates. -- Nikodemos 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

But, can we agree that at this point there is a need to limit the size of the template somewhat, and in accordance with my earlier posting balance its content? --Soman 14:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that template should be trimmed, however I also agree with Nikodemos that current design is better. -- Vision Thing -- 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)