Template talk:Communism sidebar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The best way to resolve the problem

is to include only the few undeniable ones : Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin. --Inbloom2 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But Luxemburg is arguably less relevant than say Trotsky, Stalin and Mao. I repeat my earlier comment, that it is a historical misconception to focus to much on the earliest stages of the communist movement, the communist movement has been a real existing feature continuously throughout the last century. --Soman 18:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's your stalinist POV. Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, are undeniable - stalin and mao killed thousands of communists, and are most disputed, and most of the communists in 2007 don't recognize them as "communists". --Inbloom2 00:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Try getting a citation for that. After 1956 the absolute majority of the world communist movement renounced Stalin. However, that does not mean that they rejected the fact that Stalin was a communist. --Soman 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Like Vision Thing said at the bottom of the talk page, this template should not be written from the POV of "most of the communists in 2007," from a "Stalinist POV," or even from the POV of "the absolute majority of the world communist movement." It must be written from a neutral POV. PubliusFL 20:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless we change the heading to "Prominent communist theorists", we would have to mention every Communist tyrant of the 20th century, and I don't think that would be beneficial to the reader. Everyone knows about the Communist statesmen who are so villified in mainstream publications, but not everyone knows about the theorists of communism: those who truly shaped the ideology. If you don't take my suggestion, then we might as well scrap the section altogether, because I don't envision us coming to an agreement on who to include otherwise. – WGee 09:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could change the heading to "Founders of modern communism"; that way we could include only Marx, Engels, and Lenin. But whatever the case, the heading needs to be changed because it is much too broad as it stands now. – WGee 09:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that my second suggestion, "Founders of modern communism", is the most pracitical, since the criteria for inclusion would be more narrow and objective (e.g., one could not argue that Fidel Castro was a founder of modern communism). – WGee 10:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That certainly doesn't get us around including Stalin and Mao. The largest communist party in the world (not to mention the largest political party, period) is the Chinese Communist Party, which is explicitly Maoist. So are many other extant communist parties and organizations throughout the world (such as the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA), especially in Asia. Doesn't excluding the largest communist party in the world from the definition of "modern communism" seem a little bit POV? North Korea clings to Stalinism, which itself makes Stalin notable as a founder of modern communism - and probably Kim Il-Sung as well. Other Stalinist parties and organizations also persist to the present, which gives the Trotskyists and Maoists someone to ostracize from the movement. PubliusFL 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, naming section "Founders of modern communism" doesn't solve the problem, it just narrows the list of communists. Also, there is the same problem with schools of communism. -- Vision Thing -- 19:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Using your logic we would have to include every Communist leader of the 20th century, which is neither beneficial for the reader nor practical. The whole idea behind my suggestion, Vision Thing, is to norrow the list of communists: the narrower the list, the less opportunities there are for POV disputes. Plus, the founders of modern communism are the most important communists, so if we are to include anyone, it must be them. – WGee 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say, it's really criminal not to have prominent links to Mikhail Bakunin, the Russian Marxist turned Anarchist/Marxist critic who pointed out during Marx's lifetime that the sixth stage of communist revolution, namely the withering of the state, would not occur due to the nature of the state to seize more and more power. This is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union. Bakunin is vital to understanding the original theory of Marxism and how it relates to the history of the Soviet Union; without this link, casual readers will be unaware of Bakunin's sympathetic critique. Certainly Bakunin is a more important figure than Rosa Luxembourg. 24.185.105.189 01:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bakunin wasn´t a marxist, he tried to destroy the international, He was an anarchist. And I agree with you Luxemburg is definately not important

An alternative approach

On Template:Trotskyism, there was, similarly, a debate over which individuals should be included. Ultimately, we found a consensus by agreeing on four rough levels of notability, and then agreed which level various people appeared to fit. Given the number of people at various levels, we decided to add to the template only those individuals who met the characteristics of the top two levels of notability.

For instance, we might say:

1. Theoreticians whose work is used by most branches of communism.
2. Individual leaders of major branches of communism.
3. Theoreticians whose work is used by one or more significant branches of communism.
4. National communist leaders in countries prominent in the communist movement.

While an approach along these lines wouldn't necessarily stop arguments, particularly those over the definition of communism, it would help to ensure that the same standards are applied to each individual. Warofdreams talk 17:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But trotskyism is much much smaller than communism... My proposal is still : Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin - and why not the link to List of communists. --Inbloom2 18:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking List of communists is of course a good idea. Still though, its difficult to say that Luxemburg would have been more prominent than Stalin. --Soman 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Or more prominent than Trotsky. I agree that Trotskyism is a small subcategory of communism, which is why I've proposed rather higher bars for people to reach to appear in this template. For instance, re: Inbloom's proposal, Marx and Engels, and maybe Lenin would probably reach the top level of notability; Luxemburg probably the third level. I'm really interested in comments as to whether this approach would be helpful, rather than more suggestions of particular lists of people who should be included, as that approach hasn't yet yielded consensus. Warofdreams talk 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a useful way to think about the issues, Warofdreams. Using that heirarchy, I'd agree that Marx and Engels would definitely be in category 1, Lenin either in 1 or 2. Category 2 would definitely include Lenin (if he's not in category 1), Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao. Ho Chi Minh would probably fall to category 4. PubliusFL 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My new proposal : User:Inbloom2/Template. Otherwise, we can delete the "Prominent Communists" section and simply put a link in "Related subjects" to Karl Marx and List of communists. --Inbloom2 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Block the disruptive editor, not changes to this template

Day after day I keep waiting for the protection of this template to be lifted. In frustration, I have reverted my own May 2006 redirect of the alternative communism template. sidebar&diff=101285890&oldid=54255469 The wait is getting ridiculous.

The protection of this template should be reversed, in addition to restoring the established version of the template, immediately. Protecting the template was not the correct course of action for J Di to take see his log. Pages are only supposed to be protected from edit wars when the source of the the reversions cannot be traced to WP:POINT, vandalism, or the bad behavior in general of a single user.

The edit war here was the result of the disruption of a single user, Mayis (talk · contribs), who was making frequent reversions for days, often with mindless edit summaries like "Rv. Stalinist cencorship" in his/her edit summaries. [1] There was a consensus among all established editors here that (1) the colors typically associated with the communist movement across the world since the early 20th century (red and yellow) should be used in the template; and (2) that Joseph Stalin, probably one of the three most widely known communist leaders of the 20th century, should be included if we are linking any handful of biographies to this template. No other consensus would be appropirate, given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 08:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The protection policy does state that "A temporary full-protection is used for: * Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war (...)" This short-term protection does seem to have had the desired effect, as it has facilitated discussion, and since protection has been removed, there has not yet been a continuation of the edit war. The points you mention do seem to have majority support, but there are other issues proving controversial under current discussion. Warofdreams talk 00:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Editors acting in the interests of the encyclopedia do not require 'majority support.' The page should never have been protected on a version using an uncommon color scheme for the sickle and hammer symbol. The edit war over who to include under 'prominent communists' was silly. Any expert on the subject willing to work in a nonsectarian manner could have resolved it easily: any such list must include at a minimum Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao. If those key figures are included, any combination of any of at least a handful of the other names mentioned (such as Luxemburg, Gramsci, Mariátegui, and Ho Chi Minh) is fine. If common sense cannot prevail here, we can try blocking disruptive editors, or just dropping the list of 'prominent communists' altogether. There is no reason, however, to protect the template on an incompetent version. 172 | Talk 07:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that there may be a difference between your point of view and the interests of the encyclopedia. It may also be worth looking at m:The Wrong Version. Warofdreams talk 11:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I read that meta page on "the wrong version" more than three years ago. I was one of the site's earliest administrators, the 60th as a matter of fact (there are currently nearly 1,100). I understand the guidelines for protecting pages as well as anyone. The source of the edit war here was WP:POINT. Protecting pages is not the way administrators deal with WP:POINT. The way administrators deal with disruption is issuing blocks or warnings. Anyway, this discussion is no longer relevant. At my request, the template was correctly unprotected, and there is no need to look into J Di's action, as there is no evidence suggesting his mistake was not made in good faith. Second, your comment "there may be a difference between your point of view and the interests of the encyclopedia" is neither here nor there. Are you disputing the following: any such list must include at a minimum Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao. If those key figures are included, any combination of any of at least a handful of the other names mentioned (such as Luxemburg, Gramsci, Mariátegui, and Ho Chi Minh) is fine? That assertion rests on an empirically grounded observation of traditional coverage of communism in other encyclopedias and sourcebooks. It does not rest on the supremacy of any ranking of importance I personally hold. 172 | Talk 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing to be gained by picking over this particular discussion further. Regarding your statement; while I personally regard Stalin and Mao as having little to do with what I understand as communism, we need to have a list based on the common understanding of the term, so I think that they should be included. That said, there are users involved in this discussion who disagree with this for reasons I believe are sincere and do not fall under WP:POINT. Warofdreams talk 15:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I did say, nor mean to imply, that everyone trying to keep Stalin and Mao out of the template was involved in the discussion here for insincere reasons falling under WP:POINT. Notice I was referring to the frequency of blanket reversions by Mayis, and his/her inflammatory edit summaries "Rv. Stalinist censorship." I did not mention Inbloom2, who has been civil, as far as everything I've seen. I'm sorry if I was unclear earlier and left the impression I consider misguided proposals disruption warranting administrative sanction. 172 | Talk 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

User:172, your edit comment was : "use red and yellow-- the commonly associated colors" - while you changed the entire template ! As I said before, we can delete the section. I try a version, using the image you want - but there has been a long discussion about it... --Inbloom2 13:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my objection to the version of the template protected by J Di. Your new edit [2] introduces new problems. It is fine that you delete the list of 'prominent communists.' Such a list is not essential. You left the list of "schools of communism" idiosyncratic. The major 'schools' traditionally covered in encyclopedias and sourcebook entries on communism include the following: Leninism, Stalinism (or anti-revisionism), Trotskyism, and Maoism. Your list omits Stalinism and Maoism, but includes schools of communism that typically do not get much attention in encyclopedia entries: "left communism," "council communism," "Luxemburgism," and "Anarchist communism." In making lists on this template, and anywhere on the encyclopedia, only include incidental entries if and only if all essential entries are also included. 172 | Talk 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

? I don't undestand your revert : we agreed on the deletion of the "prominent communists" section, + leninism is not a basic concept of leninism, and so on... --Inbloom2 23:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, I don't care that you are removing the list of "prominent communists." (The removal strikes me as tendentious editing, but personally I hardly consider it worth a fight, as the list is not essential.) My post above and my edit summaries instead call your attention to the new problems you have introduced. The list of "schools of communism" in your revision does not follow the basic guideline I explained earlier: In making lists on this template, and anywhere on the encyclopedia, only include incidental entries if and only if all essential entries are also included. Your list includes the incidental entries 'Left communism, Council communism, Luxemburgism, and Anarchist communism,' while ignoring essential ones, Stalinism and to a lesser extent Eurocommunism. I am not suggesting that certain entries are essential because they refer to 'true' communism while incidental entries do not refer to 'true' communism, as I suspect you assume. Rather, I am noting the fact that encyclopedias and sourcebooks, in their entries on communism, traditionally focus their coverage on Communism in the Soviet Union, and the parties aligned with the CPSU or that split with the CPSU. Movements that split with the CPSU included Trotskyism, anti-revisionism, Maoism, and to a lesser extent Eurocommunism. Many encyclopedia and sourcebook entries on communism do not even mention 'Left communism, Council communism, Luxemburgism, and Anarchist communism' a single time. 172 | Talk 12:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of Council Communism before I came on Wikipedia, and it sound very very unimportant --CmrdMariategui 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Inbloom2

In your last edit you added "Luxemburgism" to "schools of communism." The term "Luxemburgism" or "Luxembourgism" is not used a single time in all of Encyclopedia Britannica. Search Britannica at [3] Only 27 results come up for "Luxembourgism" at Jstor, an online database of scholarly journals. Search Jstor at [4]. The term is uncommon. The reason is that KPD, formed by Luxemburg and the Spartacist League in late 1918, was increasingly loyal to the Soviet Union in the 1920s and 1930s. Following her execution, the party took up the mantle of Marxism-Leninism, not "Luxembourgism." Luxemburg was a prominent member of the SPD from the turn of the century to the beginning of the First World War, and later the Spartacist League during the wartime years until her execution in 1919; finding a place for her biography on the template might be helpful to readers. But including "Luxembourgism" in the template gives undue weight to an obscure term. 172 | Talk 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that people are really anxious to take out "Left communism, Council communism, Luxemburgism, and Anarchist communism", possibly represent all of them under one or two titles, which would be alright only if we represented all of the currents that claim to be "genuine Leninists"; Stalinism, Trotskyism, Titoism, Maoism and Eurocommunism under "Leninism" and therefore taken out of the template in order to be represented in a possible Template:Leninism in the future. ~Mayis

The above post is incoherent. Did you read my post above? "Luxemburgism" was removed for a specific reason, with the aim of making the template consistent with standard coverage of communism in encyclopedias. Left communism and council communism were not removed. Inclusion of anarchism was moved, not stipped from the template. 172 | Talk 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why anarchist communism and luxemburgism should be deleted from the template... It's true that luxemburgism has been defeated early, but is this a good reason to delete it ? At least I put RL (and KM) in the "Related subjects". --Inbloom2 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If we decide not to include luxemburgism, I think it will be logical to delete titoism. --Inbloom2 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, anarchist communism wasn't deleted after all. My bad. --Inbloom2 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Titoism and the split between Yugoslavia and Stalin receive extensive coverage in encyclopedic entries on Communism. You have not shown evidence of a single encylopedia even using the term "Luxemburgism" in any entry, let alone offering an article about the subject. Giving undue weight to minority points of view is inconsient with the editoral policies of Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 17:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Symbols & Stalinism

Dear All,

Not, stalinism is not a communism; look in en:wiki: Stalinism is the political and economic system named after Joseph Stalin[...]. It includes an extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission, and most notably, the promotion of communism as the highest political and economic ideal. – it's quite the contrary of the communism, indeed.

Not, hammer & sickle are not the symbols of communism. Marx's Kapital is the only common element, although criticised (and not a symbol indeed) to all mentioned movements. Hammer & sickle are proper to russian revolution (1917 and onwards) and to maoism, and most communists today are quite hostile to this tradition; from historical point of view, it is a wrong icon for the template as a whole. If you don't want to use the image of the first page of the Kapital (avail. on commons), then please consider what we did in Poland: Communism template.

cheers, ziel & 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read the comments above. It is in your opinion that Stalinism is "quite the contrary of communism" - the vast majority of Communist parties and movements in the twentieth-century were based at least somewhat on Stalinist principles. There are still communist parties today (such as the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA), who believe that Stalin was a great communist leader. Just because you disagree with that view, doesn't mean that the view doesn't warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, precisely, its their opinion that S. was not only great but also a communist. We don't have to include all the opinions, right? I mean, amicus consensus, sed magis amica veritas! Why not doing a templace with "dictatorships"? It would be a nice home for S. At universities, in the UK or in Fr., we teach things like "Communism", and we show explicitly that there are no grounds from historical point of view to call the guy "communist", this is done both in philosophy and in history classes. We are able, today, to show that stalinist praxis went against almost everything Marx thought important. History is being written continously, and we are only now starting to understand many features proper to ... well... I will not insist, just another sign of how risky this all wikipedia thing is. ziel & 13:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All opinions don't have to be included, but the most notable ones should. The idea that Stalin was a prominent communist leader is disputed by many theoreticians, but is very mainstream and widespread. PubliusFL 18:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Simpler version

User:172 replaced the colour version with a simpler version here citing "however, while chatting, don't use any colors and symbols and all if you object to the standard red and yellow sickle and hammer" as a reason. I understand this as saying: "as long as there is no consensus on the use of colour this version will do". I can understand such reasoning: it is a temporal compromise. He did so without discussing this change. Now he is imposing this model on other templates and threatening to get editors who disagree with him, blocked, as supposed vandals, while we should assume good faith. I think that these edits of user:172 should be discussed here, before enforced here and elsewhere: do we want a clean and professional template in blue and white? or do we want a template that uses appropriate colours? I opt for the second. C mon 16:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"appropriate colours" – blue for Smurfs is indeed appropriate; no such a thing with communism. please, please, please, take a look here and just try to think about this option: template communism. ziel & 17:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any signficant communist group which doesn't use red as its main colour? Where they have a secondary colour, it may be yellow, white, black or a variety of other colours, but surely nobody is arguing against using red? Warofdreams talk 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about the background colour, right? Have you seen the red version? There is no reason to insist on a very ugly (when pink) or a very unreadable (when red) background, whereas the colour is inessential to what is being said in the template (this is a minor point in this debate, I am only defending user:172 move, i.e. neutralizing). There is obviously the second problem of colour (yellow or white for hammer and sickle), but I argue that this one can be solved quite easily: you should get rid of the h&s stuff altogether. ziel & 20:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to get some structure back to this discussion; while it previously looked like things were moving towards consensus, since the template was unprotected, pretty much every single element of it has been the subject of edit wars. Warofdreams talk 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, User:172 has lost the point here. A consensus was established long ago that Hammer n sickle ought to be used as the symbol of communism. I think it is relatively uncomplicated that 1) use hammer n sickle as symbol on top and 2) that red is the colour most generally associated with communism worldwide. Exactly which type of hammer n sickle is of course a more trivial issue. My only problem is that the 'red n yellow' one is cropped from the USSR flag, and that it is the symbol as a general feature that should be displayed, not an associated to a particular state or party. --Soman 17:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sickle and hammer/image guidelines

"Images must be relevant to the article [in which they appear] and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)," according to guidelines mandating "encyclopedicity" in the selection of images. The red and white sickle and hammer at Image:Hnsvariation.PNG is not notable, but idiosyncratic. The colors are not associated with the sickle and hammer emblem used by any major historical Communist party. Its usage is inappropriate in this template. This is not a matter of personal or ideological preference subject to compromise and consensus among Wikipedia users, but the imperatives of editing the encyclopedia.

Soman (talk · contribs), however, continues making reversions to previous drafts of the template using Image:Hnsvariation.PNG. His/her justistication (see his/her 17:56, 21 January 2007 talk post) is that Image:Hammer and sickle.svg is cropped from the flag of the Soviet Union. If Image:Hammer and sickle.svg is unacceptable, Soman has three permissible options (1) select another red and yellow sickle and hammer currently uploaded (such as the CCP image at Image:Flag of the Chinese Communist Party.svg); (2) modify the colors of Image:Hnsvariation.PNG-- a process which requires minutes and software to which just about everyone here has access, such as "Paintbrush" on Microsoft Windows; or (3) opt to use no image in the template. Restoring Image:Hnsvariation.PNG, an even more clearly unacceptable image, however, is clearly uncalled for, and frankly demonstrates a lack of respect to editors interested in making coverage here consistent with the coverage of communism in encyclopedias. 172 | Talk 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the comment "The colors are not associated with the sickle and hammer emblem used by any major historical Communist party." sort of disqualifies User:172 from further commenting the issue. Perhaps he/she has not heard of CPI(M), Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), CPN(UML), Communist Party of Spain, Communist Party of the Russian Federation, etc. Yellow on red is actually not very much today by communist parties. --Soman 20:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. I did not say that red and white was not used by any major Communist parties; rather I said "major" parties. Two parties receive by far the greatest amount of coverage in encyclopedias in entries on Communism: the CPSU and the CCP. Your comment that red and white are the predominant colors associated with Communism today is utterly abusrd. Red and yellow is used today by the CCP. Red and yellow are futher used in the national flags of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the People's Republic of China. Note that none of the paries you mention is the single ruling party. 172 | Talk 04:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think violated the NPA policy. If my comment is perceived as harsh, you should also take into account that I was accused of vandalism no very stange ground just prior to that. Moreover, I don't think I misquoted you, I copy-pasted your exact comment, which explicitly said 'any major Historical communist party'. To make such generalized statements without proper reference should generally be avoided. In my comment i pointed out several current major communist parties using the red-n-white scheme. To say that only CPSU and CPC are to be counted as the major communist parties is a bit odd, it is a very narrow way to look at the history of the communist movement. In the end its not a matter of statistics, whether 70% used red-n-white and 30% red-n-yellow or vice-versa, since any such comparison would violate WP:OR, but to clarify that 1) red is the primary colour of the international communist movement and 2) a variety of secondary colours are used. --Soman 11:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to the Britannica article on Communism and figure out what share of the article deals with Communist parties that use red and white sickle and hammer symbols. In the coverage of Communism in enyclopedias, the CPSU and CCP feature most prominently. Effots to disregard the histories of the CPSU and CCP in coverage of Communism will be resisted on grounds of clear encyclopedic guidelines governing the contributions of editors. 172 | Talk 17:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, CPSU symbol was not identical to USSR flag. CPC has also used other colour schemes than yellow on red. Red flag, white star, black hammer n sickle was widely used during the revolution (variations like this one). Moreover, what to define as a 'major' party is not something that can have an exact definition. CPSU and CPC are certainly amongst the most notable communist parties in the world, not one could hardly argue that CPI(M) (which governs, through elections, states with a combined population of above 110 million) is a minor party. Do not claim false authority, that there is any 'encyclopediatic guideline' that says that solely CPSU and CPC are the relevant components of the international communist movement. --Soman 19:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, that's weak. If I weren't well aware that the Russian and Chinese Communists have used many different banners and symbols over time, the trivia would be interesting. The most enduring banners used in Soviet and PRC national and party banners, nevertheless, have been red and yellow. 172 | Talk 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I propose this Image:Sickle.gif for the template, it has no conflicts based on copyrights...or we can always use the unicode for the sickle+hammer. ☭ moizkhan 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No. We are not rewriting history to fit the aesthetic preferences of Wikipedia users. We must use red and yellow, or none at all. 172 | Talk 09:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally; I don't see it as rewriting history; but I do see your point here. ☭ moizkhan 14:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Soman, please use complete sentences and avoid slag (e.g., using "n" as a shorthand for "and"). We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not participating in an instant message conversation, online chatroom, or an online social networking community. 172 | Talk 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What to include

We now seem to have reverts between three distinct versions of the template: [5], [6] and [7].

Perhaps we can structure this discussion a little, in order to try to develop a consensus. I've tried to break up the main areas under dispute, and the three alternatives which are being added to the template. It'd be good to have a clear explanation from a supporter of each proposition as to why they deem this the best option, and an indication of the level of support this enjoys (this is not a vote). Feel free to propose variations on these propositions. Warofdreams talk 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised a user of your status is not aware that content guidelines are not a matter for voting. NPOV cannot be voted away; Wikipedia is not a democracy. [8] The vote cannot be considered binding. 172 | Talk 04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I have said above. This is not a vote. I do, however, hope that proponents of differing points of view will see fit to explain their reasoning. As I have said before, there are good faith proposals being put forward from a number of angles, and I believe that it may be helpful for users to discuss these, and give an indication of their general level of support. While, I repeat, this is not a vote, it may be that this format will give an indication to some users as to why their proposals are not accepted by others, and provide ideas for building a consensus. Warofdreams talk 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It sure looks like a vote, with users erroneously claiming "white and red to be the colors most commonly associated with the theory of communism," as one person put it, voting away the imperatives of writing an encyclopedia with a majority. Hopefully your section layout below does no harm. 172 | Talk 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Template colours

The template should have red as its main colour, and use white elsewhere

Red is universally known as the colour of communism. White is a neutral colour to use alongside it; in addition, many communist organisations have used this combination of colours. Warofdreams talk 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Warofdreams, red/white combo will look great. NBAwire:syxx 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

- Question: Warofdreams, can you give an example of an organization which uses this combination? Most flags of communist countries, for instance, use red and yellow (Such as China, the USSR and individuals SSRs, Vietnam, Red Khmer etc.). - C mon 10:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some examples:

• Virtually all South Asian communist groups (CPN(UML), Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Communist Party of Bangladesh, Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Socialist Unity Centre of India, JVP, etc.). I'm not sure about Pakistan, though.
• It is commonly, although not exclusively used by the Communist Party of Spain
• Communist Party of the Russian Federation]
• Communist Party of Norway
• Portuguese Communist Party
• Party of the Communists of Catalonia
• Syrian Communist Party
• see also [9], a style heaily used during the comintern period

--Soman 11:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

• Support, thanks for the examples Soman, they've convinced me. - C mon 09:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, red as standard colour of communism and white as neutral. Using yellow would be rather Leninist, while the other normally neutral colour, black, would be rather anarchist. White is neutral. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Using white is the anti communist colour.--CmrdMariategui 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The template should have white as its main colour

Support

1. ziel & 22:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (white is both neutral and easy to read from; red frames maybe?)
2. `'mikka 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC). Templates are tools for navigation, not for expression of political views. Bright red colour in a quite large template is distractive for reading of the article and degrades the readability of the text when used as a background, even in this version, with a single red line, the word "communism" is barely readable. `'mikka 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This point about readability on a bright red background is true; this is probably why this shade hasn't been used in other versions of the template. Perhaps either a paler shade of red, or a more subtle use of it (for example, using Ziel's frames idea. Alternatively, if (and only if) we use headings which are not links, we could have white text on a slightly darker red background. Warofdreams talk 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How about we use Template:Marxist_theory style; not directly but, for the use of red, as it will have no conflicts as far as readability goes...and personally looks good as well. The only objection I can think of is that we don't want to confuse a reader about Marxism and Communism. ☭ moizkhan 02:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks reasonable; certainly much better than the current mess on this template. Warofdreams talk 17:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

I added an inobtrusive amount of red color into the template, for the purposes of demonstration. I agree that red must be present; it is an undeniable symbol, but it must not smack you in the face. `'mikka 20:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Image

The template should use an image of a white sickle on a red background

Support

I, like many others consider white and red to be the colors most commonly associated with the theory of communism. Though personally red sickle on white background might work better ( Such as this one: Image:Sickle.gif ). NBAwire:syxx 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Either way, red on white or white on red, it should be a hammer and sickle on a solid background and using the red and white colour combination. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The template should not include an image

Support

1. ziel & 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (certainly not the H&S image)

Further discussion

I support having a picture on top, I don't really see what the problem with it would be. I don't wish to make any detailed argument over exactly which image file to use, but I have reservations over symbols directly taken from the flag of the USSR. --Soman 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: What about a red flag? Such as Image:Red flag waving transparent.png, or an SVG could be created, perhaps based on Image:BlackFlagSymbol.svg. Is a red flag not an option? I recall this template once featured Image:Red flag waving transparent.png. Thoughts? —Dylan Lake 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It was (and should be) on {{Socialism sidebar}}, doubling it here would create confusing. C mon 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: What about the following?

The image, which of course needs to be cleaned up graphically, is based on the symbol used by the comintern and their affiliates. IMHO, it would be representative of communism as an international movement. It also incorporates the red star, which is essentially in communist iconography. --Soman 12:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I promise that images associated with marginal sects are not going to be used in the template. 172 | Talk 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

1. stop trying to sound like you have any authority over other editors. 2. are you saying the comintern was a 'sect'? --Soman 06:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Red flag is too broad, as is red star. They both represent socialism in general, not communism. Hammer and sickle is used by all varieties of communists, from Stalinists to anarchist communists. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The hammer and sickle is a symbol widely associated with communism, and used by most branches of it. Warofdreams talk 04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Basic concepts

A longer list should used, including Mode of production, Internationalism, Class consciousness, Class struggle, General Strike, Communist revolution and World revolution (Leninism and Marxism should appear under the Schools of communism section)

Support

This is what I would support. Include all schools under "schools", not as "basic concepts," including Marxism and Leninism. Basic conepts should be universal, or so close to universal it won't matter. For the same reason, remove Dictatorship of the Proletariat to a different section, because many modern communists disagree. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

"Democratic centralism" and "Dictatorship of the proletariat" are not "basic concepts" of communism, so I move them to "Related subjects" where they belong. They're not removed from the template. --Inbloom2 17:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with moving "democratic centralism", as it is a Leninist concept, and Leninism is not the only school of communism, I must ask - why is it that "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not a basic concept of Communism? It was espoused by Marx and Engels wasn't it? Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 22:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes yes. But, for example, while he was in the International Workingmen's Association Marx never spoke of dictatorship of the proletariat. And many communists don't either. --Inbloom2 23:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Marx and Engels were not the sole founders of communism, just its most politically powerful (and hence most recognisable) form. Many communists, especially those outside of Marxism (and even Marx himself for a while), did not and do not necessarily hold the DotP as a basic concept. Non-Marxists certainly don't hold Marxism as a basic concept. Only basi conepts of communism, not of Marxism, should be included here. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Prominent communists

A brief list including Marx, Engels and Lenin should be included

Support

There is too much POV involved when trying to decide which communists (other than Marx, Engels, and Lenin) are prominent enough to appear. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Support

Seconded, Rosa Luxemburg has very few followers and they are all splinted sects. While being a socialist female she hardly can be considered a communist. Her followers have never produced anything Material and do not exist in the vast majority of the world. On that same merit Mao and Fidel Castro.

Stalin should be included as well as a Leader who has built Marxist-Leninism socialism successfully.

I don´t see how Trotsky can be included nothing material has ever came out of a trotskyist group, other than being famous and writing a lot of silly books. But if Trotsky is included, Georgi Dimitrov sure as hell should be included. And Jose Carlos Mariategui too, the first true Latin American Marxist leader and theoritician.--CmrdMariategui 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A longer list including Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and some others to be decided should be included

Support

I'd say Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Luxemburg and Mao. - C mon 10:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks about right to me. PubliusFL 18:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I could also, as a compromise, settle for this list. --Soman 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Same Here, looks like a good list. ☭ moizkhan 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me too. -- Vision Thing -- 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I support, although I think that you are terribly wrong putting Stalin here, from historical (his role in evicting communists from his entourage) and philosophical (professed "ideas") point of view. ziel & 10:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just POV. I think it should be deleted ; if kept, only Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky - as the title says. --Inbloom2 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I edit as said a week ago. --Inbloom2 22:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

We're still not out on this, there is no consensus either way. Although we do not vote, 5-1 is not a consensus for the one editor. I have reverted your edit. C mon 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out that Che Guevara was a prominent communist, no matter your opinion. You can't deny that. He should absolutely be included.

Stalin also has to be included; even though I don't consider him a communist at all, that's irrelevant.

And can we have at least one anarchist communist (Peter Kropotkin or Emma Goldman probably) on that there list? ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you on two points: what did Che contribute to communist thought? Not much. I agree with Stalin he is on this template with good reason. But third Kropotkin and Goldman were anarchist communists, which is a strand of anarchism not of communism. C mon 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed Che didn't contribute to communist thought, and neither do stalin and mao... So why are they in this section ? --Inbloom2 01:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The list isn't of "people who contributed to communist thought", it's a list of "prominent communists" That's the point I was trying to bring up in the below section. Did you read what I said there?

And anarchist communism is a form of communism. That's why it's called anarchist communism. Marxists do not have the authority to decree what is and is not communism. Marxism has its own template for exatly that reason. ~Switch ^{t c g} 04:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know Che only wrote two books, and they were on guerrilla warfare. Stalin wrote dozen books on communism, and Mao is the father of Maoism so I don't know how you can say that he didn't make any contributions to communist theory. -- Vision Thing -- 15:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If Trotsky and Rosa Luxemburg are included then so should Georgi Dimitrov, Ho Chi Minh and Jose Carlos Mariategui

Reason, These two produced more material changes in the concepts of Marxism that produced positive results for the working class movement accross the world. Mariategui is famous for being a communist theoritician and leader whos works are read accross Latin America on the conditions which exist there and the conditions to struggle. He has inspired revolutionaries all accross Latin America with his Seven Essays on the Peruvian Reality. He lead the Socialist Party which later became the Communist Party of Perú, was bound in a wheel chair and is current a national hero of Perú with schools, roads, towns named after him. He did all this having died in his early 30s.

And Dimitrov, was leader of the Comintern, wrote the masterpiece the United Front at the 7th congress of the Comintern a tactic which is still practised by every serious communist in the world today. And he defended himself in Nazi Germany about the burning of the reichstag, so brillantly he turned the Trial around in an international spotliggt put the whole Nazi Government on Trial in the proceedings against him. As a result of the international pressure and embarassment dealt to the Nazi government he was found innocent and held for months in prison after the innocent verdict. He lead the Bulgarian Communist Party and was later the president of Bulgaria.--CmrdMariategui 01:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. So they are influential for communism: so was Anton Pannekoek. The list used here is a staple list of the most famous communists. The consensus about this is very precarious. I've decided to revert your actions until consensus is reached. C mon 06:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don´t consider Rosa Luxemburg to be an influential or famous communist. Her contrabutions to history and theory was non-existant at best harmful at worst. Leon Trotsky is obviously famous, but his legacy is being a rally point for attacking communisms in practise. However even if fame is an issue, ask any communist party member if they know who Georgi Dimitrov is, or ask anyone in a South America Leftist group if they know who Mariategui is. Then the fame gage still applies. But I still don´t think Fame should be the only merit for including communists, if so definately Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh. These two both contradibuted strongly to Marxist-Leninist theory and they both made a huge impact on history. I fail to see any of Rosa Luxemburg´s ideas impacted history in a significant way. Only a few European groups and a canadian one say they are Luxemburgist, and they have not ever attained a position of power or support in their whole history. However clerely Dimitrov and Mariategui did. I don´t think you can compare Anton Pannenkoek impact to the likes of Dimitrov or Mariategui. These two are on a whole new level. Anton Pannenkoek´s impact is limited even less than Rosa Luxemburg. In fact perhaps including Ho Chi Minh would be a good idea too.

--CmrdMariategui 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is non-sense. Luxemburg is one of the most important marxists theorists !

Re-write History isn't a part of Wikipedia's policies. --Inbloom2 00:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

More so than Jose Carlos mariategui or Georgi Dimitrov? These two changed the face of communist movements accross the world. Dimitrov with being leader of the Comintern and his amazing writing on the United front. and Mariategui on the conditions of the proletariat movement in Latin America.--190.40.116.132 18:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

More than those two, obviously... --Inbloom2 18:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not including Mariategui is an insult to all us South American communists.

--190.40.116.132 18:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And not including Pannekoek, Gramsci ?

I think we should only put Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, and Lenin. If others are to be included, then we're going for 10 or 15 names. --Inbloom2 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Luxemburg´s contributions to history is almost non existant outside of Germany. With the exception of 5 groups world wide. Which have never brought about change in their countries. Adding Luxemburg and not adding Mariategui or Dimitrov is insulting. Ho Chi Minh brought fundamental changes to the conditions of Millions of people in South East Asia, is well known by Communist and Anti-Communist alike. Dimitrov lead the comintern and the contributions in the United Front brought the communist movement 10 years forward in tactics. Luxemburgist in their 90 year history took a minor part in an failed uprising in 1919 Germany. Mariategui organized the first major marxist party in South America. He is recongized as a national hero of Perú. And his works on the 7 essays advanced marxist theory in the Semi-Colony and colonial world. Has inspired uprising accross south America and communist and socialist parties accross south america follow his ideas. Luxemburgists ideas are followed by Sects in the Left Communists movement.--CmrdMariategui 00:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Marx, Engels and Lenin are regarded as important political leaders and theorists by almost all communists and must be included. Of the remainder, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao have had the most impact. I'd support removing Luxemburg, while the additions of Mariategui, Ho Chi Minh and Dimitrov are of primarily of regional or national importance. There are a huge number of figures who are of similar importance to them, and we need to stick the most significant individuals only. Warofdreams talk 16:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The removal of Luxemburg is acceptable by almost all except some spartacus sects. So lets remove her then. Unsigned comment by CmrdMariategui

!!! Rosa Luxemburg is included in all templates about Communism, in every languages. The removal is absolutly unfair. --Inbloom2 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think's it's clear that we do not have consesus to add Georgi Dimitrov, Ho Chi Minh and Jose Carlos Mariategui to this template. --Duncan 05:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

Do we really want a list of "prominent communists"? Judging by the discussion, I'd say "prominent theoreticians" is more along the lines of what people are arguing for. With the former, it is practially necessary to inlude Che Guevara. People don't seem to be mentioning him at all though. If theoreticians are preferred, change the list to that. Even better, have two lists. One of theoreticians (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Kropotkin is my recommendation) and one of prominent communists who weren't theoreticians (Che, Luxembourg, that American woman whose name I don't know ...). ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"that American woman whose name I don't know" doesn't make for a very strong argument for her inclusion! Are you thinking of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, or possibly Helen Keller? Neither has anything like the prominence of the people currently listed. Warofdreams talk 16:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think he means Emma Goldman, an anarchist (or anarcho-communist). But this template clearly to kind of communism supportive of the Russian Revolution and not anarchist who wrote stuff like My Disillusionment in Russia. For those people there is the Template:Anarchism sidebar. C mon 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But this isn't a Marxism template. Besides, many anarcho-communists were (initially) supportive of the Russian Revolution. The challenge anarcho-communism needs to meet is sufficient notability, not support for a particular event. Warofdreams talk 04:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I know Goldman's name. I was almost certainly thinking of Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, thank you for that, Warofdreams. I knew it was a victim of McCarthyism I was thinking of anyway. She was a famous American, founded the ACLU, political prisoner, etc. That seems to be her. I'm actually quite ignorant of America when it comes to stuff like that, which is why I couldn't remember her name. But (co-)founding the ACLU is pretty big, isn't it?

Anyway, whether or not she's included, there would be people. Perhaps Stalin would belong there, as he made little contribution to theory, only to practice? I don't know entirely. But this is the kind of thing I'm thinking of. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove Luxemburg due to no popularity outside of Germany and Sects

Luxemburgs addition only serves a small ideological interest. In Latin America, Africa, or Asia there is not a single group that follows her ideology. In Europe, and North America, there is small sects of 5-10 people. She is covered in the Left communist section, but I fail to see how she is more important than other left communists. Or even Leninist communists such as Georgi Dimitrov or José Carlos Mariategui from appearing on the list. Her inclusion is very eurocentric. Anti-communists and Non-communists have not will have never heard this name before. Her contributions to history in a material sense is a small part in a failed uprising in 1919 germany. And since then those claiming to be descendants of her theories have made absolutely no impact on history, positive or negative. If some will argue include her because she is a female socialist, I would like to point out she is not the only one.--CmrdMariategui 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It serves a big encyclopaedic interest. --Inbloom2 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Luxemburg should remain. Her work on imperialism, the party and the national question had a lasting international influence on communists. She is also a major influence on Trotskyists. --Duncan 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Then include that in the Trotskyist bar, not the communist bar. Because oif thats the case I´ll include Dimitrov for his works on the United Front which all Leninists communist parties include in their program.

Communist groups

A section entitled "Communist internationals", including the Communist League, First International, Comintern and Fourth International should be included

International links have been vitally important to communism, and these are the four most prominent international organisations. They are all well-known and have had genuine significance, both in organisational terms, and in developing communist theory. Warofdreams talk 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I support that for the reasons given. We should also include the Second International. --Duncan 05:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Support

Include the World Federation of Democratic Youth its the largest active organization of young communist leagues or anything to do with communists in the world today.

I oppose the unsigned comment above: the WFDY isn't an international. --Duncan 05:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one supports this addition, I will remove it. --Duncan 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

how is it not an internationale? they told meetings issue joint statements, do joint solidarity work. Assist the developement of member organizations and so on. Is this different then any other internationale?--CmrdMariategui 06:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This section should not be included

Support

I think its best to leave this section out altogether. The listing creates a false feeling of continunity, that there is a gradually development from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 (portraying the Trotskyists in a POV manner). The first international existed prior to the break between marxism, anarchism and social democracy, and cannot be said to be classified as a 'communist organization' in the modern sense. Really only Comintern is notable on its own for inclusion, and thus I think its best to scrap the section altogether. Perhaps a substitute could be 'History of Communism' with Paris Commune, October Revolution, Comintern, Chinese Revolution, Fall of USSR etc. ? --Soman 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's best to keep the template as simple as possible, and information about the various internationals will only be useful to a small number of individuals, who can simply look up the relevant pages themselves. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Internationals indeed create a false sense of continuity but as will a historic list which includes the Paris Commune. C mon 10:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, remove this section. It's not doing any real good. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Template format suggestion

I suggest to section the template according to major issues:

• Ideology , for major trends
• Fundamentals
  • Philosophy, for philosophical fundamentals
  • Politics, for political issues, like, revolution, etc.
  • Economy
• International
• Related subjects

Comment: I would like to suggest that Stalinism or Titoism are not "schools" of communism in traditional understanding of the word "school" as applied to a branch of a teaching. In terms of communist theory, Stalin and Tito contributed not very much. During Stalin's era the "Stalinism" was a tribute to personality cult, nowadays it became a political slur.

Therefore I suggest to put the "schools" under the header of "Ideology", because there is no common supercategory for all these "-isms": some differ in theory, but others only in politics or economy. `'mikka 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Support 100%. --Irpen 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Support 100% as well. Good point about the use of the word 'school.' While a loose definition of the term 'school' refers to a group of persons who follow a common ideology, Mikka clearly establishes that changing the heading to 'ideology' is preferable. 172 | Talk 21:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious, but somehow unpopular. ziel & 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking somewhat further, I see more problems with the structure of the template. The the section "Fundamentals" (which I cut out of "related subjects") is in fact but a small piece of what is listed in {{Marxism}}. So I guess it is quite redundant.

Alternatively, this section may list only issues immediately related to communsim. Eg. "Modes of production" is part of a larger picture within Marxism, since it is applicable to all forms of society. Therefore it must be removed.

Please suggest changes along this line. But please without polls for now. They only unnecessarily clutter the talk page and must be used sparingly. The most sure way to reach a consensus is to start from identifying common general positions rather than headlong into branching of opinions 1,2,3,4... for details. `'mikka 21:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree 100% again. Polls only cutter the page. Mode of production belongs in the Marxism template, not here. 172 | Talk 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why we might start by suggesting changes to the present template, which has no consensus, and in my view is rather unattractive? The approach above has been yielding lots of information on what are common general positions; I'm not sure how the template in its present state does that. Warofdreams talk 04:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates must serve their function and be encyclopedic before looking attractive. Image:Hammer and sickle.svg had been in the template for months. The current template avoids using it to discourage at least one user from reinserting the unrepresentative Image:Hnsvariation.PNG over and over again. 172 | Talk 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'd like to comment here, but the talk page is almost impenetrable. The current version of the infobox looks pretty bad. The red-on-white is not nearly as good as the previous red/light red/white version. I can't understand the opposition to the red-yellow hammer and sickle. The centralised layout was much nicer, with the '·' points. We should probably link to some high level lists, e.g. "List of Communist parties". - Francis Tyers · 12:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's start talking about the contents first. We are not a porn site to make the page attractive. Then we can make things prettier. IMO it doesn't matter which hammer/sickle will be on top. These petty talk about colors heavily distracted from the purpose of wikipedia altogether, namely, delivering of information. Therefore until the content of the template will be established I suggest to stop artistic talks. `'mikka 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, back to communism. I accidentally noticed the {{Left_Communism sidebar}}. It also heavily overlaps with Marxism and Communism templates. Isn't it time to get together and make some common sense with all these communisms? By the way, is there any "right communism" or "centrist communism" or other? Is there a place where they all are listed? Is there wikiproject Communism? (I see there exists Portal:Communism), whose colors remind me colors of Red Army (red, yellow and black). Are these really colors of communism? Indeed, communists must hire good marketing guys (now these are colors of blood and shit :-). `'mikka 16:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Left communism is a pretty distinct ideology; its supporters often regard themselves as the only true communists, but the template isn't a rival to this one. When you mention right communism, are you thinking of the Right Opposition? It's not counterposed to left communism, but to the Left Opposition. Centrism within communism is discussed under centrism, but it's a pejorative term, so it wouldn't be appropriate to have a template for it. Oh, and it's not a coincidence that colour of communism is the colour of blood - see red flag. Warofdreams talk 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"colors of blood and shit" - no, they're the colors of "the blood of angry men" and "the dark of ages past." Or of "a world about to dawn" and "the night that ends at last." ;-) PubliusFL 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not like to insist on the Smurfs, but they are the only creatures I can think of that have an essential link to some colour. Red is fine if it fits from aesthetic point of view, but has little value otherwise. ziel & 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Red has always been the colour strongly associated with socialism and communism. Are you seriously arguing otherwise? Warofdreams talk 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was, it still is, but it is inessential; this whole discussion about colours and, above all, pictures became quite comic, didn't it? No-one would be mislead if we kept it white and neutral! people can read, and they want a transparent, easy to use tool, and not the consensual version of the Truth About Genuine Colours of the Real Communism. Keep talking about the content of the template, this part is relevant. I am dropping out. ziel & 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. Above all, colours and pictures look good. That's why infoboxes, templates, and images are so well liked. Even if it's not necessarym we like it, editors and readers alike. Add to that the intrinsic value of visual information - makes a link in the reader's mind, grabs attention, etc. It connects the subject with a clearly recognisable colour or image, so the subject "gets it". There's no reason to remove colours and images entirely over a minor issue like this. Whether we decide on my preference of red and white or not, I am opposed to removing colours and images entirely. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Communism-related templates

Warofdreams wrote: "Left communism is a pretty distinct ideology ... but the template isn't a rival to this one". I am not talking about "rivalling" of templates. I am talking about making order in navigation. Left communism is communism, yes/no? {{Communism sidebar}} or something else must be clearly set as a common denominator. Further, {{Communism sidebar}} lists both "Left communism" and "Council communism". If they are different branches, then why Council communism is templated with {{left_Communism sidebar}}? What I am saying is that the collection communsim-related templates must be treated as a whole interrelated one.

Also, I would suggest to take a look at the design of {{Sultans of the Ottoman Empire}}, with its groups and show/hide funstion, possibly other advanced design of naviration boxes.

So I guess, this talk must be continued in the communism portal or project, not here. BTW, does there exsist a list all communism-related templates? I suspect no. `'mikka 18:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Left communism is a subset of communism; the template is useful in the same way as Template:Trotskyism is. Template talk:Left communism might be a good place to pose some of your queries. Warofdreams talk 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideologies

What is a current inclusion criterion for this section? According to 172, only the ideologies which appear in the entry on Communism of at least one major encyclopedia or sourcebook should be included. Left communism, Council communism and Anarchist communism doesn't seem to satisfy that criteria. -- Vision Thing -- 13:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Left communism should be included, it was an significant tendency. Anarchist communism is a subtrend of anarchism, not of communism. Moreover, Stalinism should be removed from the list. Stalinism is not a distinct ideological school, it is a term more used as a derogative. --Soman 12:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Stalinism continued to have a following among "anti-revisionists" following the 20th Congress speech in 1956. 172 | Talk 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But the anti-revisionists never themselves used the concept of Stalinism as self-identification. The term is solely used as a slur, and should not be included in the listing. --Soman 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not include left communism, council communism and anarchist communism if, say, Titoism and eurocommunism are to be included. They're just as marginal. I think all the ideologies, exepting any possible incredibly speific, fringe ideologies (such as a specific type of a specific type of Trotskyism which is at odds with all other Trotskyisms, for example) should be included. I can't think of any such ideologies, but they probably exist. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarfiy, Titoism and Eurocommunism are not marginal ideologies. Titoism was the ideology of an influential president and his ruling political party, while eurocommunism has been the ideology of several parties within governing coalitions. Neither can be said of left communism, council communism or anarchist communism. – WGee 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So, for anarchist communism and council communism to be included, we'll just have to wait for a ruling or co-ruling party to take hold in their names, eh? That's not biased at all; thanks for the rationale. Titoism is not exatly practiced or promoted widely, often relegated to the Stalinism slur, and eurocommunism is a blanket term for Western European reformist parties, not an ideology. I don't see either as more relevant than left communism at all, or even council and anarchist communism. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don´t see why Titoism needs to be included, as its not an ideology its a slur against throse who follow tito´s ideas. And Eurocommunism is not really a communist ideology is a social democratic ideology. Council Communism, is already covered under Left Communism. --CmrdMariategui 00:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on "Totoism". "Eurocommunism" should be on "related subjects". --Inbloom2 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Titoism is the name generally accepted for Tito's communist ideology. I removed Neo-Marxism from the template since its article isn't defining it as an ideology. -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Inbloom, Titoism and Eurocommunism are not really ideologies.Eurocommunism is reformism, its nothing different from the socialist or labour parties and should only be included on related subjects.

The red bar

Zahir0617 asked on the Talk:Communism about the red bar, and I think it's a valid question. It appears to encompass everything in the box, even though the section on the bottom isn't communism and not necessarily red. I think we should have another red bar before those items. Comments? Xiner (talk, email) 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-communism

From anarcho-communism "Anarchist communism is a form of anarchism that advocates the abolition of the State and capitalism in favor of a horizontal network of voluntary associations through which everyone will be free to satisfy his or her needs."
It seems therefore obvious that it should not be on this template, which concerns communism, while anarcho-communism is a strand of anarchism. C mon 12:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarchist communism is also a form of communism. That's why it's called anarchist communism, the intro contains a link to communism, and it has this very same bloody communism template we're talking about now.

Seeing as forms of anarchism an only ever at all be types of anarchism, how about we dissociate anarcho-syndicalism from syndicalism, green anarchism from green politics, and anarcha-feminism from feminism too? Obviously none of those forms of anarchism are forms of the other ideologies.

I'm finding it very hard not to make a personal attack here, and your "obvious" this and "clearly" that isn't helping. You said above that "this template clearly to kind of communism supportive of the Russian Revolution." Nothing could be further from the truth (not to mention that Goldman did support the October Revolution, at least initially). As Warofdreams already explained, this is a communism template, concerned with all forms of communism; for a template on Marxism, see Template:Marxism. ~Switch ^{t c g} 12:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, Marxism should be distinguished from communism. Mensjeviks, orthodox marxists and revisionist marxists did not support the Russian Revolution, which caused the political split between communism and socialism. Marxism is not a substrand of communism.

Second, your argument is mainly based on a linguistic similarity: they're both called commuism. The case for green anarchism and anarcha-feminism is different however. They co-developped with feminism and green politics (note however that green anarchism is not the {{Greens}}). Anarcho-communism existed before the political split between communism and socialism (which occured around 1917-1918) when communism, socialism and social-democracy were all equivalent (the Dutch communist party f.i. was first called Social Democratic Party).

Therefore the link between anarcho-communism and communism as a separate political ideology is tenuous.

As a compromise we could put it in the see also section of the template, but implying it is a substrand of communism (as putting it in the "ideologies"-section implies) is obviously based on fallacy.

Please remember that wikipedia is based around civility and that there is no need to curse or swear.

C mon 13:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an argument. My argument is based on inherent evidence. Regardless of when anarchist communism was first proposed, it is patently still a form of communism, "an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production." Your argument, until now, has been "it's anarchism so it's not communism duh that's obvious," which was not the most credible of opinions.

I think it yourself who is trying to separate the two based on linguistics, with talk of the change in meaning of terms like social democracy.

I can't help but see this as you trying to make this template relate to "a-certain-definition-of-communism-that-is-much-narrower-than-the-broader,-basic-meaning," viz. Marxism-Leninism.

History is irrelevant in this debate; are anarchist communists communists or not? Yes, they are. You're the only one disagreeing, apparently on the basis of the faulty assumption that since communism had a different meaning then (which, largely, it didn't; democratic socialism and social demoracy, and to a lesser extent socialism, did if anything), it refers to something which is not communism.

As you are alone in your argument, could you kindly explain why it is that anarchist communism is not a form of communism, which you have so far failed to do? ~Switch ^{t c g} 14:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anarcho-Communism is a form of Anarchism, I am 100% sure all people who consider themselves Anarcho-communists group themselves as anarchists rather than communists. And in terms of modern usage of the word communist rather than the usage in 19th centurary its clear that it describes Marxists of some form or another. In any sense of the word they would be considered Communalists in modern descriptions and definations rather than communists. If this is not true why is the Anarchist Template on the Anarcho-communism page rather than the Communist one? If someone is really a clear believer that anarcho-communism is a form of communism than they would support too putting the communist template on the page rather than the anarchist one--CmrdMariategui 16:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: a discussion is under way at Talk:Anarchist communism#Template. about the appropriateness of including this template in the Anarchist communism article. Skomorokh ^incite 07:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Juche

Vision Thing reinserted "Juche" under the template category of major communist ideologies, stating in his edit summary, "I don't mind inclusion of left and council communism if Juche is included too." In other words, Vision Thing is purportedly inserting "Juche," a North Korean slogan which lacks a serious international following, to make a point objecting to the inclusion of 'left and council communism,' which also lack a major international following. This type of editing is a clear-cut example of WP:POINT. Vision Thing should be admonished to build a consensus on the talk page, if he seriously believes that 'left and council communism' do not belong on the template. Disrupting the encyclopedia to make his point, however, is an inappropriate means of building this consensus. 172 | Talk 06:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vision Thing, both council and left communism and juche are marginal, therefore include them all or include non of them. C mon 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, either we should include all marginal currents or we should exclude them all. Worst solution is to include some and exclude others. -- Vision Thing -- 11:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the way to fix two problems is not to create a third problem. That is the point about WP:POINT. I will go ahead and be bold, removing all three problems. Hopefully by now the ultra-leftist activists have moved on, deciding to POV a different page. 172 | Talk 12:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Left communism and Council communism are currents existing in many countries since the 1920's !

It doesn't matter how old they are, but how important they are.-- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They're important since more than 80 years, deleting them is not acceptable. --Inbloom2 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Workers Party of Korea has around four million members, so there are at least four million followers of Juche. That certainly warrants it being listed here. Are there even four million "council communists" worldwide? ;-) Cmrdm 05:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Neoconservativsm

I don't understand why Neoconservatism should be here ? --Inbloom2 11:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that it was either a joke, or a reference to the tenuous connection that some neoconservatives were once Trotskyists. Either way, there's no case for it being on the template. Warofdreams talk 22:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Neoconservatism emerged as a Schactmanite branch of Trotskyism that dropped Communist imagery to better defend the permanent revolution against Stalin and assorted Middle Eastern nationalists. It fits as much as New Left Yakuman 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But although that has been claimed, it has no basis in reality. While there are a couple of former supporters of Shachtman who are now neoconservatives, the link is extremely slender. On the other hand, most of the New Left identified as communists of one sort or another. Warofdreams talk 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalinism

I hate to be "that guy", but no one ever seems to listen when someone points out correctly that Stalinism is not an ideology. Disclosing my own beliefs right away - I'm a Council Communist - I'd like to make it clear that my objection to Stalinism being on the template is not that it is an abhorrent distortion of Marxism (as the same could be said of Leninism et al). Instead, as the Stalinism article points out, '"Stalinism", strictly speaking, refers to an interpretation of a style of government, rather than an ideology'. The same could be said of Titoism; and likewise, strictly defining terms, Religious communism is not an ideology either. I firmly believe that Stalin should remain in the "Prominent Communists" section, but as far as the term "Ideology" is concerned the three aforementioned articles may better belong in the "Related Subjects" section. --Kronecker 09:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - except for the "Prominent Communists" which should include only Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg, and Vladimir Lenin. --Inbloom2 09:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Stalinism is not an ideology, no, so it probably should be moved. However, religious communism - while not an ideology itself - is a family of related ideologies and forms of communism. I don't much mind where it is included, but I feel strongly that it should. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 07:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An ideology is (according to wikipedia) "organized collection of ideas". Stalinism is an organized collection of ideas most prominently "socialism in one country" and the "aggrevation of class struggle under socialism" which were important in the USSR, Soviet satelite states and European communist parties. Please explain how Stalinism is not an ideology! C mon 08:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not an organised system of ideas, it's a state of political and economic affairs under a certain administration. Compare totalitarianism. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 01:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One wonders why nearly European communist parties (none of which were governing at the time) destalinized in the 1970s and 1980s radically changing their political course? I think we have enough hearsay here, can any one provide any external references to stalinism being an ideology or something different? C mon 07:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica - I found this very quickly and I think it proves my point that it is not an 'ideology' per se. Of course, I could have visited any Trot site on the internet to find the same information, but I figured you'd want a reputable source. --Kronecker 09:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Virtually no one calls themselves "a Stalinist", that is just a pejorative used against various parties and individuals (this is explained on other talk pages), including many who are/were actually critical of Stalin. Specifically, Trotskyists and liberal intellectuals use that term. Actual Marxist-Leninists who support Stalin simply call themselves, "Marxist-Leninists." Saying that a party/country/individual is "Stalinist" is therefore a POV statement. Cmrdm 05:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Banner

This is in regards to the image under the communism banner; I believe it to be a derisive and inappropriate banner for articles based on this school of thought for the following reasons. First, the image of the hammer and cycle, while the banner of the (arguably) most famous Marxist nation in history, also represents, in the minds of may people, authoritarianism and oppression, thusly it becomes a negative communicative act, in that the image characterizes the whole of Marxism, as supportive of the policies of the Soviet Union (the aforementioned country). However the Soviet paradigm was drastically different from Marx’s vision, in that firstly that nation was perpetually mired in the dictatorship of the proletariat stage, never making an effort to abolish the state or indeed class. Secondly it is my contention that there are many other images which could, and should be used, (a photo of Marx?) which are not as derisive and do not encourage a, frankly, incorrect view of communism as a school of thought. Thusly because the current image represents a negative communicative act, which inherently goes against the “NPOV” ideal of Wikipedia, and since there are many images which comply with NPOV, in that they do not conjure biased thoughts/images, I believe that the image should be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.88.161.39 (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

What are you, a twelve-year-old with a thesaurus? Writing with such a convoluted prose style not only obscures your point, it prematurely gives readers the impression that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This template relates to the Communist movement, there is a different template that deals with pages relating to Marxist theory. The Communist movement, both historically and currently, has used the hammer and sickle (not 'cycle'), or things similar to it, to symbolize itself. --Kronecker 06:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I may have made a slight mistake in my spelling of sickle, sorry, however that does not change a few central facts. Take into account that, religious communism is also bunched in this series; I hardly think that the hammer and cycle is appropriate for that movement. Indeed with so many schools of thought lumped into this series that any image might be inappropriate; indeed grouping these schools of thought grouped together in a series might be inappropriate. In any case I strongly urge someone to either change or remove the current banner image, which is associated, in the minds of readers, irrevocably with the Soviet Union, in favor of a less derisive image or, better yet, lack of image.

Until you can spell 'sickle' correctly (you wrote 'cycle' again) and refrain from over/mis-using the word 'derisive', why should anyone pay attention to you or the asinine arguments you've reiterated on this page, Talk:Das Kapital and Talk:Communism? You are wrong; stop changing the template. --Kronecker 06:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My arguments are hardly asinine, even if I mess up on spell-check (as I’m sure we all have at one time or another). The fact is that you’re using an image which is basically the Soviet flag. The Soviet Union has been so demonized that using an image associated with it does, in fact, constitute a negative communicative act. Why should anyone listen to your immature insults? You sir have not made any statements to counter my argument, instead you have perpetuated an attitude which has kept Wikipedia from gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the academic community. The Soviet banner should be removed, the template looks fine without an image and casual readers are not greeted by an image which is clearly associated with a reviled entity like the Soviet Union. Sickle, sickle, sickle.

Reduced Footprint

I reduced the footprint of the template by removing some redundant uses of the word "communism" and moving items on to one line where possible. Would it be a good idea to also move Titoism to ideology? Neitherday 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Off course Titoism should be in the ideology section as should Juche and Stalinism. C mon 07:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have already showed that Stalinism is not an ideology. Juche and Titoism, on the other hand, are ideologies. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 08:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved Juche and Titoism into ideology, as seems to be consensus. I also moved the "Basic Concepts" section to the top, as it generally makes sense to start out with the basics. Neitherday 15:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's less understandable : "Council", "Religious" ?

"Communist state" isn't a "basic concept" of Communism, since Communism means that there's no state at all...

Quoting Kronecker : "Juche doesn't even claim to be Communist, while Titoism is exactly like Stalinism in as much as it describes a practical system of government instead of a coherent theory". --Inbloom2 19:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-communism" and "Criticisms of communism" are nearly twice the same thing. I think only one should be kept. --Inbloom2 19:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Most political series' infoboxes start out with different schools or ideologies. Ideologies should remain on top.

Juche, I'm glad to see, has no controversy surrounding its classification as an ideology. It is considered communist by most sources, so regardless of its lack of claim (as opposed to counter-claim, which would make a difference) it should stay. Titoism is more controversial, but I would say it is considered an ideology: Edvard Kardelj, says Britannica, was "the chief ideological theoretician of ... Titoism".

I'd be inclined to keep Anti-Communism over Criticism. I think it's more notable.

Ditch Communist state from the "Basic concepts" section, as various communist ideologies actually vehemently oppose it.

I don't find "Council", "Religious" etc. confusing at all, but don't prefer them either. If all links could be either as adjectives - "Marxist" for "Marxist communism" linking to Marxism just as "Left" is for "Left communism" - or as nouns - "Marxism"; I'm not sure what the "___ communism" links would beome in this case if the "communism" is still excluded - it would be good. Mixing them as the current template does is confusing.

In any case, if the abbreviated versions are kept it would make sense to separate the different ideologies with bullets or en dashes; currently looks like there's a "Left Council" link. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 10:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the truncated names is that this template is a navigation feature and should strive to take up as little room as reasonably possible in the article. Navigation templates that are too long tend to push other article elements out of place, reducing the quality of the articles that use the templates. I do agree with you, however, that bullets or en dashes may be a good idea. Neitherday 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Communist state should be added back. While in theory the state should cease to exist, in practice large communist societies have always included a powerful state. Neitherday 01:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a POV : "communist societies", where, when ? --Inbloom2 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Soviet Union (whose symbol is found at the top of the template), China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, East Germany, etc. had powerful state institutions is not POV. Neitherday 17:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Calling them "communist", on the other hand, is POV. And the fact that it is a part of practice rather than theory should unequivocally disqualify it from the "Concepts" section. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 08:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Howe is calling the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba "communist" POV? They called themselves communists, their enemies called them communists, their allies called them communists. The only people who don't are a few neo-communists that don't think the former and current communist states are or were pure enough. Not calling those state communists would be POV. If the Soviet Union wasn't communist, why is the hammer and sickle on the top of this template?

Second, basic concepts aren't just from theory, they are also from practice. The communist state is a basic concept of communism in practice. Neitherday 14:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SwitCh.

No, they called themselves socialists, their enemies called them communists - or state capitalists - or bureaucrats (...), their allies called them socialists. --Inbloom2 16:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was run by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Seems to me they were calling themselves communists. Neitherday 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But they call their politics Socialist, that's what I meant. --Inbloom2 10:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What they called their political party is a very good indication of what they called their politics, and they called their political party the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Sure they referred to themselves as socialists, but evolved from socialism and may even be seen as a subset of socialism, for which reason the Soviet Union sometimes used the term "socialism" as well as using the more common term "communism". Communism is the more specific term.

Are there any reliable sources that say the Soviet Union was not communist? If you are able to come up with any, I'm sure that for each you came up with I could come up with at least 20 that say it was (and that is an extremely conservative estimate). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neitherday (talk • contribs) 12:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Many communists, from the early days of the USSR, have not considered it communist: Trots, anarcho-communists, council communists, Orthodox Marxists, autonomists, libertarian Marxists, et cetera... You might be interested in the writings of Leon Trotsky, George Orwell, Rosa Luxemburg and other Marxists contemporary with the Soviet Union who considered it not to be truly communist or even socialist at all. Any Trot website - the World Socialist Web Site may be a good start - will have various texts available. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 03:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the Communist state being "a basic concept of communism in practice" (a basic concept in practice? Oy vey!), you're obviously not familiar with the Life and Labor Commune or the Spanish Revolution. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

1) There are basics concepts of theory and basic concepts of practice. This is not a contradiction.

2) As for the Life and labor party, I know that there have been small stateless communist groups bubbled within a larger society, which is why I specifically stated "large communist societies" and the Spanish Revolution was a transient development during a war. My point still stands.

3) Sure the adherents of some schools such as anarchist communists and the others you listed don't consider the USSR to have been truly communist, just like many radical feminists don't consider many less radical forms of feminism truly feminist. Neitherday 04:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Even stalinists don't consider USSR as "communist", but as "socialist"...

Where did Marx, Engels, Luxemburg... ever write about "communist state" ??? --Inbloom2 09:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to fight the english language. Despite the theory saying a communism will not have a state and the terms in the study of marxism-leninism or any social science of the left would denote the difference. It doesn't mean everyday language evolves and changes the meaning of the common usage of words. While yes more correctly it could be called the Socialist State. But its no longer incorrect to call it a communist state as language has involved to define those terms definately in common usage. Everything else in this discussion denotes a lack of deep thought into the topic. Rather a more academic outlook then a practical one. --CmrdMariategui 07:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Marx

My understanding is that not all communists are Marxists. Is that correct? -- Vision Thing -- 12:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's very correct; communism predates Marx! Marx is almost certainly the most influential communist thinker because he first synthesised the communalist and class struggle aspects of socialism which had previously been quite separate. But non-Marxist schools of communism like anarchist communism and the "theoretical communism" of some democratic socialists (who may in fact be influenced by Marx) survive. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 03:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

One should note that difference in meaning between socialism, social-democracy and communism only developed after the Russian Revolution, before that there was no clear deliniation between those currents. Consider for instance the Dutch Revolutionary socialist party Social Democratic Party (Netherlands). Therefore claiming that communism pre-dates Marx seems very strange. Communism as a real separate ideology developed only with Bolshevism, Lenin and the Russian Revolution. C mon 11:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. [[Communism] does not mean Bolshevism. The only people who ever said so were brainwashed by McCarthyism or McCarthyist propagandists. I know you're neither, which is why this is so confusing. Of course communism predates Marx, both the theory and the term, and though the terms have changed the movements have always been distinct. Communism - defined as wanting to achieve a society free of private property and class - was practiced by the Paris Commune itself among others. The difference between socialism and communism was clear to the anarchists, clear to the market socialists, clear to most before the terms became synonymous with Marx's greater influence. Then after the Russian Revolution the terms separated again. But it was only for a short period that the socialist movement and the communist movement were largely the same, and there were still distinctions made by some socialists. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 09:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Non sense, Marx is the modern ideology of all communists, to state otherwise is to say communism is an academic subject nothing more or to demand communism under privious eras, which is pure academia dribble.--CmrdMariategui 07:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I call false on that. Both Mao and Kim Il-sung declared Marxism as dated and obsolete at one point and created their own variation of Communist ideals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.196.41 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

May 2007 edit war

I have followed User:Warofdreams and reverted the edit war again on this page. Editors of this template are mistaken to fell that, if there is no consesus, they should simply edit the template. Wikipedia is managed by consensus. That is our key rule. if you cannot work by that rule, do not edit Wikipedia. Only one voice in favour of a change is not consenus. --Duncan 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A little bit mean, aren't you there? Lord fabs 11:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Navbox?

Any takers on using Navbox instead of the infobox format? At present the box is very long, making it awkward on shorter stub articles. --Soman 16:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

pt.wiki

check out pt:Predefinição:Comunismo, much nicer and neater than this one. I suggest adopting a similar layout for this one. --Soman (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Are you for copying that or for adapting this one? -- Vision Thing -- 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except that I wouldn't include all the links from the pt version. --Soman (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I adapted existing template to pt layout. What links you want to add? -- Vision Thing -- 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that it is a much better template. Cmrdm (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hammer+Sickle used as bullets

First of all, I'd like to say congratulations for all the users here, for all the hard work that has gone into this template.

However, I'd like to say, that the twelve pixel hammer and sickle symbols used as bullet points is just aesthetically terrible. The big hammer and sickle on the top of the template seems to me like it makes the point... any opposition to removing them? 68.53.219.134 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks horrible now. I preferred it with them there. Zazaban (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)