This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Communism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Communism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Communism at the Reference desk. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
Hi @ The History Wizard of Cambridge, I notice you recently added five images to the lead section. Images are often the first thing readers look at in articles. For that reason I prefer having no lede images in broad topic articles, such as communism is. Could you explain how you chose the current picks? There is a demonstration, a revolution, an anti-fascist victory, a Marxist–Leninist leader visiting another Marxist–Leninist ruled country, and a propaganda poster for Marxism–Leninism–Maoism. No libertarian tendency represented. – Vipz ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
My justification for the lead image choices
I apologise for my late reply to you @ User:viz. I chose photographs on a basis of how iconic and recognisable they were, coupled with their effects upon history and real world events.
Communist parade (6297059793).jpg - Modern India because this represents the largest communist movement outside of a communist country active today.
Fidel Castro and his men in the Sierra Maestra.jpg - Cuban revolution. Cuba is among the longest lasting communist governments, as well as one of the few remaining, and the only one in the Americas, with Fidel Castro being one of the most easily identifiable communists in history.
Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg - The Soviet victory over Nazism. In my opinion this is the most iconic photograph ever created by communists. The only other images representing communism that are as easily recognisable are the hammer and sickle (which is in this photograph), and Che Guevara shirts which are already somewhat represented by the Cuban revolution image.
Bundesarchiv Bild 183-48550-0036, Besuch Ho Chi Minhs bei Pionieren, bei Berlin.jpg - Ho Chi Minh in East Germany. This one I was on the fence for but I wanted to find an example of both an iconic communist practitioner, who also had a large effect on real world events, and represented some form of interaction between different communists.
Marxismo Leninismo Pensamiento Maotsetung.jpg Artistic poster of marx, engels, lenin, stalin, and Mao. As the five communists whose theories and actions have had the most influence upon real world events, this needs little explanation, though I also wanted to include an image I felt was typical of communist art and culture, hence why I chose an art piece.
Over-representation ? You mentioned that there are "no libertarian tendency" represented in the images, and that Marxist-Leninists are over-represented. This is likely because Marxist-Leninist communists are responsible for the vast majority of communist revolutions and governments, while "libertarian communist" have had relatively little noticeable effect on real world events. While Marxist-Leninists had military, scientific, and economic superpowers, libertarian communists don't appear to have made much of an impact on world history. That is not a comment on which ideology is supposedly more correct, that's just how it looks from a historical viewpoint. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Cummunism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15 § Cummunism until a consensus is reached. Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
So I saw the Bozoki para was removed. I didn't remove it myself because whether it should be included depends on two questions:
1) Is his (rather confused and likely incorrect) opinion regarding the history of communism WP:DUE 2) If it is WP:DUE was the statement accredited to him accurately recorded or was it garbled? Let's discuss.
I'll note I'm not particularly familiar with Bozoki. I'm not impressed with what I see here but my level of impression isn't a criterion for inclusion or exclusion on Wikipedia (alas). Simonm223 ( talk) 12:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Because of widespread usual primary use and relevance of this word, I think that Communism should rather be primarily defined as a mode of government that is justified with an ideology wherein the state would ultimately wither away, rather than primarily as the apparently practically irrelevant ideal of that ideology. 2A02:3038:413:E801:1:0:4F77:A487 ( talk) 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I think there is quite a lack of balance surrounding opinions in this section, with approximately two thirds of loaded (i.e., opinions) statements somewhat defensive of communism, and the remaining third critical. (about 70% and 30% respectively). Here's my breakdown of most of the section. I shall use blue as those defensive of communism / critical of anti-communism, and red for those critical of communism.
Total: 1240 words
Total: 658 words
My rationale for these highlights: language emphasising the violence of anti-communism, the notion that some right-wingers describe Marx as responsible for the Holocaust, emphasis on rejection of the "100 million" made-up statistic - or rejection of the "Victims of Communism" concept -, and on the notion that state-sanctioned violence under "socialist" states were aberrations - these are all clearly defensive to varying degrees, either in defence of communism or criticism of the opposition to communism (colored in red). I have nothing wrong with the majority of the cited material here. Please note that these highlightings are entirely my own opinion; please write if you disagree my assessment of imbalance.
So, by sheer A) word count, it certainly does appear significantly tilted to one side. But that skew is not necessarily bad in itself, only that it would require the academic and reliable-source consensus to be so skewed. But is that the case? I am not sure, but let's look at two more things: firstly, B) structure, and I will conclude not by merely saying that this article is unfixable, nor a great wrong (as many conspiratorial IP editors have done for years), but by writing C) other topics which are vastly sourced in relation to the topic of the analysis and reception of communism, and are more relevant than some of the arguments present - both on the critical and defensive sides.
STRUCTURE
C) OTHER TOPICS
So, here are topics I think are relevant to add, regarding reception and analysis, and many of these I think are much more relevant than arguments I mentioned under (C). Many of these are already sourced and mentioned in articles such as Mass killings under communist regimes (an article which I think shouldn't exist as SYNTH, only with some of its contents included in this article), and Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism.
In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, wrote that "the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000."[1]
In 2005, professor Benjamin Valentino stated that the number of non-combatants killed by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2]
Political scientist Rudolph Rummel and historian Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not.[3] [4]
According to historian Klas-Göran Karlsson, discussions of the number of victims of communist regimes have been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased."[5] - this quotation seems relevant for the first paragraph, instead of the unquoted source that begins "The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars..."
Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type."[6] - This could be a relevant quote, as this section merely mentions Goldhagen, Pipes et. al, without providing any of their quotations.
Benjamin Valentino writes: "Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state."[7] - this could be a good quotation for the first paragraph, as it addresses the slight ambiguity surrounding famines; famines were not necessarily unintentional.
The European Parliament has designated August 23 as the Black Ribbon Day, a Europe-wide day of remembrance for victims of the 20th-century totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.[8]
What I have done:
"Higher estimates are criticized for being based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable, skewed to higher possible values, and that victims of civil wars, the Holodomor and other famines, and war-related events should not be included."
Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type."[6] to the second paragraph of "Excess mortality"
Political scientist Rudolph Rummel and historian Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not.[3] [4] - to the end of the first paragraph of "Excess mortality".
I hope some of my further criticisms above will be taken account into further proposed changes, as I think that this section of the article is very tedious, like any "reception" and "legacy" section.
Zilch-nada ( talk) 07:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
"According to this analysis, a communist revolution would put the working class in power, and in turn establish common ownership of property, the primary element in the transformation of society towards a communist mode of production."
The above statement is incorrect. The common ownership of PRIVATE property, not personal property. Private property is all property used to exploit human labor for a profit. A person's house, car, computer, and "Fruit Of The Looms", are personal property, that isn't publicly owned. You have a right to your personal property in communism (I haven't met one communist yet, that would disagree with that statement and I've been a communist since 1988). This Wikipedia statement, that the communists are attempting to make ALL property "common" or publicly owned, is WRONG (It will give people the wrong impression, that we're coming after their stuff when we're not). Incorrect. John Bilbao ( talk) 04:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Communism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Communism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Communism at the Reference desk. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi @ The History Wizard of Cambridge, I notice you recently added five images to the lead section. Images are often the first thing readers look at in articles. For that reason I prefer having no lede images in broad topic articles, such as communism is. Could you explain how you chose the current picks? There is a demonstration, a revolution, an anti-fascist victory, a Marxist–Leninist leader visiting another Marxist–Leninist ruled country, and a propaganda poster for Marxism–Leninism–Maoism. No libertarian tendency represented. – Vipz ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
My justification for the lead image choices
I apologise for my late reply to you @ User:viz. I chose photographs on a basis of how iconic and recognisable they were, coupled with their effects upon history and real world events.
Communist parade (6297059793).jpg - Modern India because this represents the largest communist movement outside of a communist country active today.
Fidel Castro and his men in the Sierra Maestra.jpg - Cuban revolution. Cuba is among the longest lasting communist governments, as well as one of the few remaining, and the only one in the Americas, with Fidel Castro being one of the most easily identifiable communists in history.
Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg - The Soviet victory over Nazism. In my opinion this is the most iconic photograph ever created by communists. The only other images representing communism that are as easily recognisable are the hammer and sickle (which is in this photograph), and Che Guevara shirts which are already somewhat represented by the Cuban revolution image.
Bundesarchiv Bild 183-48550-0036, Besuch Ho Chi Minhs bei Pionieren, bei Berlin.jpg - Ho Chi Minh in East Germany. This one I was on the fence for but I wanted to find an example of both an iconic communist practitioner, who also had a large effect on real world events, and represented some form of interaction between different communists.
Marxismo Leninismo Pensamiento Maotsetung.jpg Artistic poster of marx, engels, lenin, stalin, and Mao. As the five communists whose theories and actions have had the most influence upon real world events, this needs little explanation, though I also wanted to include an image I felt was typical of communist art and culture, hence why I chose an art piece.
Over-representation ? You mentioned that there are "no libertarian tendency" represented in the images, and that Marxist-Leninists are over-represented. This is likely because Marxist-Leninist communists are responsible for the vast majority of communist revolutions and governments, while "libertarian communist" have had relatively little noticeable effect on real world events. While Marxist-Leninists had military, scientific, and economic superpowers, libertarian communists don't appear to have made much of an impact on world history. That is not a comment on which ideology is supposedly more correct, that's just how it looks from a historical viewpoint. The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Cummunism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 15 § Cummunism until a consensus is reached. Di (they-them) ( talk) 00:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
So I saw the Bozoki para was removed. I didn't remove it myself because whether it should be included depends on two questions:
1) Is his (rather confused and likely incorrect) opinion regarding the history of communism WP:DUE 2) If it is WP:DUE was the statement accredited to him accurately recorded or was it garbled? Let's discuss.
I'll note I'm not particularly familiar with Bozoki. I'm not impressed with what I see here but my level of impression isn't a criterion for inclusion or exclusion on Wikipedia (alas). Simonm223 ( talk) 12:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Because of widespread usual primary use and relevance of this word, I think that Communism should rather be primarily defined as a mode of government that is justified with an ideology wherein the state would ultimately wither away, rather than primarily as the apparently practically irrelevant ideal of that ideology. 2A02:3038:413:E801:1:0:4F77:A487 ( talk) 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I think there is quite a lack of balance surrounding opinions in this section, with approximately two thirds of loaded (i.e., opinions) statements somewhat defensive of communism, and the remaining third critical. (about 70% and 30% respectively). Here's my breakdown of most of the section. I shall use blue as those defensive of communism / critical of anti-communism, and red for those critical of communism.
Total: 1240 words
Total: 658 words
My rationale for these highlights: language emphasising the violence of anti-communism, the notion that some right-wingers describe Marx as responsible for the Holocaust, emphasis on rejection of the "100 million" made-up statistic - or rejection of the "Victims of Communism" concept -, and on the notion that state-sanctioned violence under "socialist" states were aberrations - these are all clearly defensive to varying degrees, either in defence of communism or criticism of the opposition to communism (colored in red). I have nothing wrong with the majority of the cited material here. Please note that these highlightings are entirely my own opinion; please write if you disagree my assessment of imbalance.
So, by sheer A) word count, it certainly does appear significantly tilted to one side. But that skew is not necessarily bad in itself, only that it would require the academic and reliable-source consensus to be so skewed. But is that the case? I am not sure, but let's look at two more things: firstly, B) structure, and I will conclude not by merely saying that this article is unfixable, nor a great wrong (as many conspiratorial IP editors have done for years), but by writing C) other topics which are vastly sourced in relation to the topic of the analysis and reception of communism, and are more relevant than some of the arguments present - both on the critical and defensive sides.
STRUCTURE
C) OTHER TOPICS
So, here are topics I think are relevant to add, regarding reception and analysis, and many of these I think are much more relevant than arguments I mentioned under (C). Many of these are already sourced and mentioned in articles such as Mass killings under communist regimes (an article which I think shouldn't exist as SYNTH, only with some of its contents included in this article), and Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism.
In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, wrote that "the failed effort to build communism in the twentieth century consumed the lives of almost 60,000,000."[1]
In 2005, professor Benjamin Valentino stated that the number of non-combatants killed by communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia alone ranged from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million.[2]
Political scientist Rudolph Rummel and historian Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not.[3] [4]
According to historian Klas-Göran Karlsson, discussions of the number of victims of communist regimes have been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased."[5] - this quotation seems relevant for the first paragraph, instead of the unquoted source that begins "The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars..."
Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type."[6] - This could be a relevant quote, as this section merely mentions Goldhagen, Pipes et. al, without providing any of their quotations.
Benjamin Valentino writes: "Although not all the deaths due to famine in these cases were intentional, communist leaders directed the worst effects of famine against their suspected enemies and used hunger as a weapon to force millions of people to conform to the directives of the state."[7] - this could be a good quotation for the first paragraph, as it addresses the slight ambiguity surrounding famines; famines were not necessarily unintentional.
The European Parliament has designated August 23 as the Black Ribbon Day, a Europe-wide day of remembrance for victims of the 20th-century totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.[8]
What I have done:
"Higher estimates are criticized for being based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable, skewed to higher possible values, and that victims of civil wars, the Holodomor and other famines, and war-related events should not be included."
Daniel Goldhagen argues that 20th century communist regimes "have killed more people than any other regime type."[6] to the second paragraph of "Excess mortality"
Political scientist Rudolph Rummel and historian Mark Bradley have written that, while the exact numbers have been in dispute, the order of magnitude is not.[3] [4] - to the end of the first paragraph of "Excess mortality".
I hope some of my further criticisms above will be taken account into further proposed changes, as I think that this section of the article is very tedious, like any "reception" and "legacy" section.
Zilch-nada ( talk) 07:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
"According to this analysis, a communist revolution would put the working class in power, and in turn establish common ownership of property, the primary element in the transformation of society towards a communist mode of production."
The above statement is incorrect. The common ownership of PRIVATE property, not personal property. Private property is all property used to exploit human labor for a profit. A person's house, car, computer, and "Fruit Of The Looms", are personal property, that isn't publicly owned. You have a right to your personal property in communism (I haven't met one communist yet, that would disagree with that statement and I've been a communist since 1988). This Wikipedia statement, that the communists are attempting to make ALL property "common" or publicly owned, is WRONG (It will give people the wrong impression, that we're coming after their stuff when we're not). Incorrect. John Bilbao ( talk) 04:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)