Talk:Communism

I suggest we add a "Criticism of Communism" section. Suggested opening sentence: "Communism has resulted in extreme poverty, starvation, loss of individual rights, and mass death in every country in which it has been enacted."

"According to this analysis, a communist revolution would put the working class in power, and in turn establish common ownership of property, the primary element in the transformation of society towards a communist mode of production."

The above statement is incorrect. The common ownership of PRIVATE property, not personal property. Private property is all property used to exploit human labor for a profit. A person's house, car, computer, and "Fruit Of The Looms", are personal property, that isn't publicly owned. You have a right to your personal property in communism (I haven't met one communist yet, that would disagree with that statement and I've been a communist since 1988). This Wikipedia statement, that the communists are attempting to make ALL property "common" or publicly owned, is WRONG (It will give people the wrong impression, that we're coming after their stuff when we're not). Incorrect. John Bilbao (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Personal property is different from private property in communist thought, and in the USSR.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

It needs to say "common ownership of the means of production". Because this common ownership only pertains to private property that creates wealth, like land or a factory or a business. Any other private property is privately owned in a communist state as much as it is in a capitalist country.

The only exception I can think of is when it comes to housing. Communist states (Cuba, Gaddafi's Lybia) gift all citizens with housing arrangements. This means citizens don't have to pay for the place they live in (as in rent or mortages). But to be able to provide everyone with a place to live, the state needs to own the housing spaces. Arguably, paying rent creates wealth through ownership of the property, so housing might qualify as means of production too, even if it doesn't produce anything (rent barely qualifies as a maintenance service).

I don't know if the homes provided by the state were all created by the communist government through housing investments, or some were apropiated from private owners - probably only the first is true today. I'm not Cuban so I might get it wrong but I believe they distribute living spaces by the squares, meaning you might end up sharing living quarters with strangers, as if it was a student dorm. And you have the option to move out to a more private home, if you manage to save enough to afford it. If somebody from Cuba reads this, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, in a nutshell: "common ownership of the means of production" or "means of wealth" is the most accurate description here. Featheredhat (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

To most people, including non-Communist economists, 'private property' is any property owned privately, that is not owned by an organ of the state, regardless of whether it can be used to make profits or not. Changing the sentence to 'establish common ownership of private property' is not going to help clarify things, nor convince anyone you are not coming for their stuff. LastDodo (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Not the point. You see "according to this analysis"? You communists love theory, so read up the difference between wikivoice and a quotation. - OmegaAOL (talk page, and contribs) 06:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

eighteenth Brumaire of louis Napoleon literally describes why Russia would be unfit for communism, it's unready and just as marx said it faced extreme backwardness and arguably worse conditions than Tsarist Russia WikipedianAncientHistorian (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have not provided any reliable secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by communism. The Bolsheviks envisioned transforming Russia into a liberal democratic capitalist state. However, invasion and sanctions by the West prevented that, leaving them with few options. TFD (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

due to the Communistic regime, Lenin himself literally wanted to remove full communism that says more than enough WikipedianAncientHistorian (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bolsheviks were communists, where do you get the information that they wanted a capitalist state? Was this a typo?

Also, Lennin never wanted to remove "full communism", he was the implementor of communism. I'm very sorry but I think you got your facts wrong?

Could we at least cite a source if we're saying things like these. It's very confusing. Featheredhat (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I had an article at that point I have it saved I'll update you on it when I can lol, but removing full communism was just reverting to a milder state of communism since russia was not prepared for it at that point, full communism was extreme communism, reverting it does not equate to capitalism WikipedianAncientHistorian (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

See "Did the Bolsheviks Advocate Socialist Revolution in 1917?" by Eric Blanc: "The October Revolution codified workers’ control but it did not nationalise industry. Indeed, Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership for months after October sought to reach some sort of working arrangement with the owners of industry."

As we know, under Marxist theory, socialist revolution would be lead by the proletariat in the most advanced capitalist countries. Since Russia was a backward feudal country without a substantial proletariat,it would have to wait for the socialist revolution to come to it. Note all the ideological manoeuvrings the Bolsheviks would later have to make to explain why Russia became the first socialist state. TFD (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should just avoid saying if Communism was successful or not to avoid any bias. Other than maybe noting that Russia was one of the largest implementations of Communism, or one of the most known, it's unnecessary to note if it was successful or not. Just VERY well known. 2600:1700:684F:B000:F182:BA10:8FB8:9100 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The concept of success is difficult. It could be said that communism is a stepping stone to take an unsuccessful, poverty-stricken autocratic state to eventual capitalism. It could also be stated that no entire country has ever been communist in a pure state. But to use the word "success", we would need to depend on RS. And as TFD suggested, best-laid plans of mice and men can go awry from outside forces. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Cuba is a successful case of Communism, as North Korea is also another successful case. People saying "Communism hasn't yet been 'Ideally' implemented" don't know how good Communism is in those two countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drout 0 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Small colossal, what about this caption? Communist states are autocratic states, that's just a fact. PJ Geest (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course, communist states are a subset of autocracies. And I personally agree with the argument you are making about them. But that's the issue... it is your argument, not an argument made by this graph or by its source article. The graph and its source do not mention communism at all, and the graph does not distinguish between different types of autocracies. So, for example, several famines in "China" are listed, with no indication as to which Chinese autocratic regime is represented. It is clearly not the intention of this source to say anything about communism.

Communist states are autocracies, but for example military dictatorships are also autocracies, and several of them were responsible for famines on this graph. I don't think that means that it would be appropriate to add it to the military dictatorship article, because that's obviously not the subject of the graph. The same goes for communism. This is a graph making a point about autocracy in general. So it would be appropriate for the autocracy article, or the dictatorship article, or others that are near-synonyms of autocracy. But not for articles on specific autocratic ideologies or types of autocratic governments (communist states, military dictatorships, empires, etc.).

There is a lot of data about autocracy in general, and a lot of academic literature about it, but as far as I can see none of it is used in this article. We only use sources that are about communism specifically. I think that is a good policy. Otherwise, the sources about communism would quickly get outnumbered by sources about autocracy in general. - Small colossal (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You are implying that Communism leads to famine, while an analysis in a reliable source might point out that while Communism often arose in countries that had a history of famine, democracies did not.

The chart also makes an arbitrary distinction between uncategorized/authoritarian/democratic regimes and the colonies they administered. Ireland for example was part of the United Kingdom during the Great Famine so not technically a colony.

Note also that the chart categorizes the Ukrainan SSR as a colony. TFD (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

right; the Ukraine was a Soviet Socialist Republic from 1922-1991. <the-encyclopedia-of-world-geography> <pg. 223> 206.57.152.111 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

IOW, it was part of the Soviet Union, just as Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I would not trust that image. It misses out, for example, the Chinese famine of 1906–1907. LastDodo (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @DocZach, I believe it was an edit of mine that most recently removed far-left from the first sentence of the lead section of this article, with the edit summary: Placement of communism on the political spectrum is more thoroughly and duly addressed in the second paragraph. It doesn't really need to be mentioned in the very first sentence. The very first sentence of the article defines the topic, and I don't think placement of communism on the political spectrum is of such great importance to have it there. Likewise for articles of other major political ideologies such as socialism, anarchism, liberalism, or conservatism, to name a few. –Vipz (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the "far-left" classification should remain based on the fact that it is widely covered as a far-left ideology by reliable sources, and it is a defining component of communism. This is similar to how fascism, something on the opposite side of the political spectrum, has the "far-right" classification in the beginning sentence. DocZach (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of whether Communism is far-left. I don't think anyone disputes that. This is actually what makes fascism a bad comparison. Far-right types often try to move Fascism around the political compass for rhetorical reasons. Leftists... don't try to do that with communism. Frankly what you are being told is that we don't put WP:SKYBLUE statements in the first sentence of the article. Simonm223 (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The "far-left" classification should indeed remain... in the second paragraph, where it has been present all along. I do not think there is any reason to place it in the beginning sentence. The vast majority of articles on political ideologies do not begin by listing the classification of that ideology on the political spectrum. So, the beginning sentence for fascism is the exception, not the standard. And this article does not need to mirror that one. After all, there are more than two extreme ideologies! For example, anarchism. The beginning sentence of the anarchism article does not call it far-left, but - like in the communism article - it is mentioned a few sentences later that anarchism is left-wing (I would actually support changing that to "far-left" for anarchism, but that's not the subject of this conversation). For some ideologies, their position on the political spectrum is a more prominent aspect than for others. - Small colossal (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I disaagree that most reliable sources refer to Communism as far left. That term is generally reserved for more extreme groups, such as left-wing terrorists. Furthermore, its ill-defined and it meaning varies depending on context. Basically, it means more left wing than the speaker finds acceptable. TFD (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

TDF brings an interesting point. Do we have sources for who in fact classifies communism in the "far left" spectrum? Or a definition of what qualifies as "far-left" in the first place? Unless communism uses excesive violence to raise to, or stay in, power, calling communism far-left might be more a perception or opinion than a fact - and, in fact, "far-left" winds up meaning "more left wing than the speaker finds acceptable". Which does not adhere to wikipedia's policy for delivering strictly facts.

As an example, was the emancipation of Congo to become a free and independent country out of colonial control 'excessive in violence' and 'far-left'? If you consider independence movements to be of 'just' violence, I should follow up by saying that the Congo's first independent government was, in fact, lead by a communist leader, with no bloodshed except their own, as Patrice Lumumba was assassinated not even a few months later after becoming prime minister, by vote. Consider too that the key moments of excessive violence in Congo (Leopoldville, civil war) happened before this state was introduced (1969) and after it ended (1992), with the communists being the victims of assassination more often than not.

And even if somebody wants to argue the 'excess of violence' from Lumumba trying to take a city, it feels like it's a hard comparisson to an ideology that proposes, and implements, an absolute physical anhiquilation of a group, as is the case with facism.

So. I would ask to rephrase the text to reflect it's cathegorization as far-left is in fact subjective, such as mentioning "some people" locate this ideology in the far-left, with at least a source that reflects this point of view. Thank you in advance. Featheredhat (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this point of view, if we could we should get a citation for the "far-left" classification. Super m001 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It should be classed as far-left.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

This article cites repression of freedom of religion and speech as if it’s fact of communism. In fact, it’s only happened likely because of outside pressure. Namely US meddling in affairs. You can’t make something a fact when there is a bully on the block for 250 yrs. It is not an inherent principle of communism. If this site is not already bought by Elon/Trump it will correct that misinformation. You’re conflating some principles of fascism with communism because your masters are fascist imo. 73.35.55.164 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Trying to treat this as a serious complaint about the article and an opportunity for constructive dialogue...restrictions on religion and speech have been imposed by various communist regimes over the past century, the article reflects that. Wikipedia could say "Communists did xyz bad thing, but only because of outside pressure," but that's not the opinion of most real-world scholars (WP:RS is the relevant policy) and frankly it would make the site look like a joke. If your goal is to improve the article, there's a ton of Wikipedia policy and culture you would really need to familiarize yourself with first, if your goal is to promote communism there are better ways to do it. Prezbo (talk) 11:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

A communist country is a contradiction as of itself. You can't in your right mind say that communism has done crimes and killed people when everyone who calls themselves a communist (including Marx) knows that the dictatorship of the proletariat is not communism, but the absolute first stage towards it. 85.76.82.71 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

While this article certainly has neutrality issues it is also a Level 3 vital article about a controversial topic. What this means is that it is watched by a lot of eyes and edits will be highly scrutinized for adherence to Wikipedia policy. If you want to make the changes you are proposing I would strongly encourage you to do some reading and find WP:BESTSOURCES that support your assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

This is an understandable concern, but it must be said that there is a fairly obvious distinction between what communism means to communists and the meaning it has accrued through history -- states have come and gone, and it happens that many which have proclaimed themselves to represent the interests of revolutionary Marxism (whether or not one considers them to have actually done so) have done things which most people would consider 'bad'. Whether they truly represented the correct interpretation (whichever one that might be) of Marxist doctrine is ultimately a detail not terribly relevant. AFEG64 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"have done things which most people would consider 'bad'" From my perspective, Vanguardism and so-called "professional revolutionaries" as champions of the working class tends to translate to an elite that does not actually work for a living, and does not particularly care about the financial needs and demands of the workers. I am not particularly surprised that the standard of living in the Eastern Bloc was far from great for much of its population. Dimadick (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"that's not the opinion of most real-world scholars..."

Most "real-world scholars" being overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxons of course. Not that their "opinions" could be mistaken for an absolute truth in a world in which the media and online reference websites such as Wikipedia are vastly dominated by a few Anglo-Saxon families, right? Is this system "perfectly neutral" or are we dealing with a narcissistic self-recursive loop?

English Wikipedia citations to academic work are overwhelmingly Anglo‑American/U.K. sources. Roughly 80–90% of academic citations by English Wikipedia come from anglophone publications. And Wikipedia editors calls that "neutral". 2403:6200:8856:308:9930:CD78:6938:4BF2 (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

And what else do you expect? Most readership here comes from the west, mainly because China/Russia have largely censored Wikipedia, and that China has a (pretty inaccurate) "Baidu Wikipedia."

It's made harder by the fact that most editors on english wikipedia edit on this specific wikipedia because english is their native language. If you wanted an article based on Chinese sources, for example, you head to cn.wikipedia.org, not en.wikipedia.org.

If you would like to contribute, that's nice. Please do. Swedish Countryball (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)