Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No criticism of ideology unlike other pages?[edit]

Where did it go? Camelfan 42817 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See under "Analysis".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where it’s hidden. And as you may have noticed, Camelfan 42817, the mass killings that have taken place under Communist regimes have in this article been termed in the subsection heading "Excess mortality under Communist states", even though one of the articles about them is correctly termed "mass killings…". Instead, of some cold reality, which would of course be hard to read for proponents of communism, we appear to have apologists for the bloodthirsty revolutionaries who it is known by all were directly responsible for the murder of millions ruling the roost of this article. We have text and notes which are full of fluffy arguments about the murders being the result of "unbalanced development", and suggestions that the manmade famine of the Holodomor being just one of many famines. The Holodomor: "3 million dead of starvation or bullets or both, but nothing to see here." The murders were political. Does anyone disagree? Boscaswell talk Rodaan

Why is there an out-of-place, one-sentence claim that communist china reduced its poverty rate to 6%[edit]

1. Per the world bank, "By 2022, 10.8 percent of the population in China are expected to fall below the $5.50/day per person poverty line."

The only way to get that 6% is to cite blatantly lying state media propaganda.

2. Why is this even in the Post-Soviet Communism section?

It has 2 paragraphs, and one of them is that single sentence proclaiming to the world that 6% is the poverty rate.

I can't edit this page but request that someone who can do two things:

i.) Remove the offending sentence from the end of the Post-Soviet Communism section.

ii.) Report the account that added that sentence. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's process for investigating accounts, but I am sure we have a strong consensus here that state media should not be writing Wikipedia articles, particularly on topics sensitive enough that administrators locked all editing. (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is sourced to the World Bank. The main researcher was Martin Ravallion, who had a PhD in economics from the London School of Economics. Hardly "blatantly lying state media propaganda". You might check the source before making accusations and calling for an investigation". Now, that number is from 2001 and may need updating. But, the number you quote is what it is expected to be, not measured. This is not a surprise given the effect of the pandemic on China and the extreme lockdowns. Once the dust settles, this can be updated. But, the point of the sentence is that economic reforms did, in fact, dramatically improve the poverty rate, extreme in older days. The next two decades are another discussion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 6% number is absolutely not found in the World Bank page you mentioned. It's also not asource with "World Bank data, but that is beside the point.
The source does not support the claim. It also is irrelevant to the section. O3000, why are you lying to push the state narrative?
Additionally, imagine if a paragraph were added detailing the increase in poverty under Xi's reign. Such a paragraph would be equally irrelevant to the Post-Soviet Communism section as the unsorted paragraph I proposed deletion of.
I can't edit this page but request that someone who can do two things:
i.) Remove the offending sentence from the end of the Post-Soviet Communism section.
ii.) Report the account that added that sentence. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's process for investigating accounts, but I am sure we have a strong consensus here that state media should not be writing Wikipedia articles, particularly on topics sensitive enough that administrators locked all editing. O3000 also appears to be a sock of the Communist Party. (talk) 1 February 2023 (UTC)
[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Sock of the Communist Party" ? - this whole article looks like it was written by a sock of a collective of all the communist regimes there have ever been! Apologists are us. Not this Wikipedian. Boscaswell talk 01:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncertain Phrase[edit]

A friend of mine and I talked about Wikipedia accuracy on certain topics and he brought up (According to Rachel Walker, Marxism–Leninism is an empty term that depends on the approach and basis of ruling Communist parties, and is dynamic and open to re-definitions, being both fixed and not fixed in meaning.), saying that this is wrong. I am not very informed on this topic and while I see that the article is citing someone (ie. Rachel Walker), I don't exactly understand why Rachel Walker is being brought up here, especially when, by all I know, Marxism-Leninism isn't an empty term. I personally think this is minor, ie. not article-breaking, but as it was brought up by him as an inaccuracy I'd be interested to understand why this paragraph is as it is. Thanks a lot, ULTRACOMFY (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not convinced that the view as expressed by that sentence as phrased is worth inclusion in the article. Like all political terms, it is "both fixed and not fixed in meaning" but to say that the term is "empty" is a point of view so WP:exceptional that it should require a higher degree of sourcing. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thank you very much! Normally I'd feel inclined to change the section in question, but when it comes to communism then I know for sure that I'm no qualified to make judgements or act on behalf of the judgement of other people. I'll just leave it to someone who knows what they're talking about. Either way, thank you for your time. ULTRACOMFY (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree this should be deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Political position[edit]

Recently, I made an edit describing communism as "far-left", not left wing. Now, I’m saying this with pretty much the entirety of the political spectrum in mind. I can’t see how an idea that encourages not just the elimination of social structures, but also the abolition of private property, religion, and the extermination of a entire structural group - the bourgeoisie - is not considered to be on the farthest left on the spectrum.

Also, I’ve found that Wikipedia’s attitude to communism is far too relaxed. For example, Wikipedia says, on the fascism page,

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.

Now, I’m not saying this isn’t true, but you can’t go and say all of this and just characterise communism, an ideology that has killed over 100 MILLION people, in addition to its deplorable ideological system of abolition of private enterprise, the bourgeoise, etc. as simply “left wing to far left” and be so ignorant to its authoritarian nature. This site is supposed to be unbiased, but providing a refuge for such a detestable system is just very hard to stomach, especially when I’ve seen editors who have - on this site - openly identified as Marxists, socialists, Maoists, the rest.

I think to be unbiased, you MUST abide by the traditional political spectrum. I’m a conservative, no doubt, but I can speak to a liberal. If Wikipedia, however, is to characterise someone like Pres. Trump and his ideology as far right, even fascist (read the Trumpism article) but simply call communism “left-wing”, it shows the site is ridiculously intolerant toward some positions, whilst embracing others (like communism) that are indubitably worse.

The Hammering Hammer (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Communism has many flavors, which the article discusses. Indeed, China, Russia, and Cuba have private enterprise. All systems have problems. No purist system seems to work at a large scale. The US is a capitalist/socialist country as pure capitalism could be described as immoral. But, we aren’t here to decide what is a good vs. bad system. To remain unbiased, we cannot make statements like communism requires an authoritarian nature as, unlike fascism, it doesn’t. Although current, large examples are authoritarian. We must cover the entire subject in an unbiased manner, which we do.
As for the 100 million deaths, you might want to read the section on “Excess mortality in Communist states”. Over the centuries, there has been no shortage of deaths at the hands of humans. As an example, it is estimated that 90% of the indigenous populations in the Americas died.
As for your statement: the site is ridiculously intolerant toward some positions, whilst embracing others (like communism), that is way, way out of line and should be stricken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I have read that section. It seems like it’s been manipulated to achieve very much an agenda. Just read this, Many authors have written about excess deaths under Communist states and mortality rates, such as excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Some authors posit that there is a Communist death toll, whose death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them, ranging from lows of 10–20 million to highs over 100 million. The higher estimates have been criticized by several scholars as ideologically motivated and inflated; they are also criticized for being inaccurate due to incomplete data, inflated by counting any excess death, making an unwarranted link to communism, and the grouping and body-counting itself.
Wikipedia doesn’t provide a source here. It’s like saying, "There is no consensus the Great Depression happened because not every one lived during that time". Wikipedia doesn’t provide a source, plain and simple. I’m not questioning any thing about fascism. And I didn’t say anything about the indigenous people. Basically, Wikipedia’s entire section is saying, We’re not sure if these things happened. "Unwarranted link to communism." Saying that is just mad. It’s actually quite disgusting. The consensus of several scholars doesn’t change anything about these atrocities, and the fact that Wikipedia is even casting doubt on the horrific stories of communist regimes is beyond wrong.
As for arguing with my describing it as authoritarian, perhaps you’d like to view the fact Marx describes the bourgeoisie as the responsibility behind despicable natures in society, and as such puts forward their demise as their answer. Marx writes this - there’s no disputing this.
Oh, yes, and read this Marx work:
"I shall build my throne high overhead, cold, tremendous shall its summit be…Then I will be able to walk triumphantly, like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom. Every word of mine is fire and action. My breast is equal to that of the creator… I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above." The Hammering Hammer (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The section I referred to links to an article on deaths under Stalin with 97 refs and there are many more in that paragraph. You have grossly mischaracterized the section. As for Marx, as I said, there are many flavors of communism. Echoing one quote from Marx as if it defines all communist variants is pointless. Did I quote Hitler, who despised communism? Your comparison to the great depression is not on point. I feel this is not going to be a useful discussion as you appear to want to turn this into a screed instead of an unbiased article on a complex subject.
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." -John Kenneth Galbraith O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those quotes are taken from different works. The first is from a book of poetry he wrote at 19 before he became interested in ideology. It's easy to cherry pick quotes from a prolific writer whose views evolved over time. Why not quote his essay written two years earlier, "The Union of the Faithful with Christ?" Then one could speculate that the Communists were secretly Christian. TFD (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that communism should be described as far-left in the introduction, instead of being labeled as simply "left-wing to far-left".
This is because communism is a political ideology that requires a radical and complete overhaul to the current economic and social structures of society and in most parts of the world it is very far of the overton window. Even the few last remaining relevant communist parties like PCdoB, CCP and JCP have, in pratice, moved away from the literal interpretation of communism that was present in their original ideologies. Lucasdmca (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the left-right axis question: there are no universal standards for left-right positions. Depending on where you stand, things might seem further to the left or further to the right. Characterizing communism as 'far-left' is misleading, as communist parties constitute the mainstream left in many countries and in some countries is the sole legal party (making left/right labels for parties superflous). --Soman (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like that you provide examples of countries where parties defending literal communism is the mainstream left.
As far as I know, there are only two countries praticing anything that remotely resembles communism, NK and Cuba. Today most communist one-party states like China and Vietnam are communist in name only. Lucasdmca (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]