Talk:Communism

Property Definition Correction:

"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)

Lack of criticism section

no consensus to add a criticism section. WP:CRIT applies The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just about every ideology page on Wikipedia has a criticism section. Why does communism get an exception? The analysis section masks criticism for a casual reader. 2.87.252.249 (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Criticism is best incorporated into the relevant sections of articles rather than put into a separate section. For example, most of the section on Stalinism is devoted to criticism. It would not help to move this material into a separate section with criticism of other aspects of the topic. TFD (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CRIT. There are articles Criticism of communist party rule and Criticism of Marxism.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's also an article Criticism of Christianity. The problem is that there are many beliefs within Christianity and many angles of attack. TFD (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

The main christianity and capitalism articles have both a dedicated criticism section, as well as dedicated criticism articles linked at the top of the main article's relevant section. It seems somewhat obvious that this deviation in format for this topic is intended to remove criticisms from the table of contents in the main article, and to bury the links to the criticisms article several paragraphs into a more neutral sounding "analysis" section. 116.96.44.114 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:AGF Please do not assign motivation to other editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, I am a reader. And considering Criticism of Wikipedia I don't think its unreasonable to express concerns of Political bias among the editors of these articles as long as the discussion is productive. If I am in error, please provide a rational explanation for this deviation in formatting among related topics as the original author of this post indicated. And if the real answer is that "criticism is better incorporated into relevant sections", then why are other political and religious articles not organized in a similar way considering they have dedicated criticism sections on their main articles? 116.96.44.114 (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

One criticism of Communists was that they usually attributed political bias to critics, even within their own party. TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

This completely incorrect and contradicted by just about every single article covering other major political ideologies. There is no reason to treat Communism as unique in that it a dedicated criticism section is unwarranted. 46.162.125.17 (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't expect neutrality here on Wikipedia, as an editor, I feel ashamed of these biased editors. Wikieditorjs (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

was communism successful in russia?

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)

Graph Our World in Data

Autocratic states, including some communist states, have experienced significantly more famines than democratic states.

@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)

"Far-left" classification in the lead sentence of the article

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)

I know this discussion was dormant, but I was wondering: could we compromise and say "left-wing to far-left"? Think about the more moderate communist parties in France, Iraq, Yugoslavia, India, Japan, Nepal, etc. KeysofDreams (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I am someone who is more focused on placement than phrasing. The left-right political spectrum analysis is a shallow perspective in many ways and especially reductive if we think of the experience of Communist Parties that have led their countries (should we think of China as led by a "far left" party since 1949? Does this mean the Mao Zedong era would be something called far-far-left? How can the government of 1/5th of humanity for almost 77 years be situated in a "far" position from a presumed center? etc.).

It is true that Communist parties see themselves as left-wing or progressive forces. But I do not think these labels or characterizations should come in the first sentence. I would rather these perspectives come later to avoid over emphasis on perspectives that are too simple. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Propaganda

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)

Splitting proposal

• Split Communism#Theory into Communist theory and communism. Lack article about the idological roots of economic thinking in the long term duration. 102.68.86.97 (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, we should discuss about it. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2025

Change “communism is a political and economic ideology” to “communism is a far left political and economic ideology” Most other far right ideologies will say “far right” but socialism and communism do not say that even though they are far left ideologies 71.117.171.150 (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I support this change. Jack Upland (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, i disagree, the (Note 1) in the article explains about it. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Is North Korea really the exception when it comes to economy?

there is a text saying "Only a few nominally Communist governments remain, such as China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. Except North Korea, these have allowed more economic competition while maintaining one-party rule." However, there are stuff surrounding economy in north korea such as Jangmadang (lit. 'market grounds'; Korean: 장마당; Hanja: 場마당; IPA: [t͡ɕa̠ŋma̠da̠ŋ]) which are North Korean local markets, farmers' markets, black markets and bazaars. Therefore i'm wondering if this text is correct? 109.81.85.198 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Having a local physical market does not mean the economy is not centralised. North Korea does not have a market-based economy. If private exchange of consumer products is limited to black markets, then obviously economic competition is not allowed. Yue🌙 21:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Jack Upland (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

you mean agree to me or agreeing to jack upland? 109.81.23.142 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

i meant you agree to me or agreeing to yue? 109.81.89.240 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Yue.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

but how about other stuff? read the wikipedia article about the economy of north korea 109.81.23.142 (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Having a non-state sanctioned black market does not mean that the state is de jure not Communist-based Swedish Countryball (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Swedish Countryball Well, maybe instead of using Jangmadang to support that North Korea allows more economic competition while maintaining one-party rule just like all other communist states, we should look on other than Jangmadang in order to support it. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

"Far-right communism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Far-right communism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23 § Far-right communism until a consensus is reached. Suonii180 (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need a dozen paragraphs-long footnotes?

I noticed the section Communism § Explanatory footnotes contains about a dozen extremely long footnotes. I'm tempted to find a way to expand them. They do seem needed, but maybe such long footnotes arent the best way to present that info. FaviFake (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on the 'Libertarian Marxist Communism' Category

This strikes me as a little odd, frankly, as a category? It's certainly not a framing I think I've seen from many self proclaimed affiliates with the described tendencies, e.g, the dutch-german communist left (council communists). I could be wrong on this, though.

Moreover, the picture of Rosa Luxemburg is out of place in that not only is she not a council communist, but she also isn't a specifically 'libertarian and democratic' theorist and was relatively close to the other members of the far 'left' of the Second Internationale, closer to Lenin than to Pannekoek.

I'd suggest getting rid of her photo and a revision of the 'libertarian marxist' category in favor of either geneological/historical categories or ones based on more specific elements (e.g, stance on the notion of the party.) ~2025-31145-79 (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Labeling every failure of communism/socialism as non-communism/socialism

In the section on the usage of the terms, much effort is put into excusing every instance of communism that failed as a misuse of the term (and implicitly some scheme by the West to discredit communism). I don't see the point of this section to begin with--what does it add besides a place to insert subjectivity?--, but some attention must be paid to the inherent intellectual dishonesty displayed. Ttfoley (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, communism can also fail just like non-communism, like non-communism can fail or succed, and communism can fail or succed. However, something that's extremly important to note is that Communism isn't a single thing, because there are lots of variations and forms of communism that have existed and exist to this day, just like how Liberalism can for a oversimplified example be, a center-left-wing party named "Liberal Party" that supports culturally liberalism, or a right-wing party also named "Liberal Party" that supports conservative liberalism, liberal conservatism, capitalism and neoliberalism. Honestly, Communism is such a complicated subject that it has resulted in misunderstandings along with biases in it, including on Wikipedia, so it is important to discuss about it on Wikipedia too. ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Where are the archived pages of communism 15-19?

Seems that they got deleted, can anyone check to see who erased them and undo the edit? Because i had to check on Wayback Machine to see what those pages were about. Apparently i found out that Wizmut merged and balanced the archives, that explains his edit but what dosen't explain is why they are blanked. But in return half of 26.3% of the archive talk pages are now blanked/gone. And they were detailed topics of what users discussed back then. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Contradiction between Bourgeois and Marxist understandings.

In the first paragraph it clearly states the Marxist idea of Communism: Classless, Propertyless, and Stateless society.

By the fifth Paragraph this is contradicted by mentioning 'Communist States'. A Communist State is an oxymoron.

The lack of clarity on defining Capitalism. ie Marx argued that Capitalism accumulates wealth to accumulate wealth.

If workers do not own the State, ie the Socialist phase, then State Ownership is merely another for of Private Property in Marxist Terms.

This lack of clarity will be defining either societies of Antiquity and Feudalism as a form of either Capitalist or Socialism society. Furthermore, following the State ownership argument will define Bismarck as a Socialist and that all European states after WW2 were socialists... ie it become absurd. ~2025-38237-03 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

We follow the base conscience for what North Korea's government system is.

And since most sources do categorize it as "Communist," that's included in the definition.

If the New York Times, NBC, BBC, and some other news organization categorize Germany as "Socialist," that will be in the wikipedia page. Swedish Countryball (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

The term "Communist" in "Communist state" refers to a state established by a Communist party or group. Communist describes the ideology, not the type of government. Communist states claimed to be socialist, which they saw as a transition to communism. TFD (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Errors in Citations. Please remove entire sentence

CITATION 339 ERROR ( Ijabs, Ivars (23 May 2008). "Cienīga atbilde: Soviet Story"https://web.archive.org/web/20110720194148/http://www.lv.lv/?menu=exblogi&sub=&type=full&id=44 )

The citation is not from George G. Watson. Furthermore, the quoted article states the exact opposite: _"The most crooked stinging, however, is told in the film about Marx, who is the “father of the modern genocide”. I am not going to defend the old Karl here, because he is really to blame for many atrocities of the 20th century – as a drunkard who has forgotten a revolver loaded on the bar counter. However, to claim that Marx in the “Reina newspaper” has defended the physical destruction of entire nations means simply lying. True, he really talks about the waste of nations (Völkerabfälle), Serbs, rents, Slovaks, which are also quoted many times in the film excitedly quote. But he talks about assimilation, not genocide."

In Latvian: _"Visuzkrītošākās dumjības tomēr filmā tiek stāstītas par Marksu, kurš, lūk, esot “modernā genocīda ciltstēvs”. Netaisos šeit aizstāvēt veco Kārli, jo viņš patiešām ir vainojams daudzās 20. gadsimta zvērībās – kā dzērājs, kurš aizmirsis uz bāra letes pielādētu revolveri. Taču apgalvot, ka Markss “Reinas avīzē” esot aizstāvējis veselu tautu fizisku iznīcināšanu, nozīmē vienkārši melot. Tiesa, viņš patiešām runā par tautu atkritumiem (Völkerabfälle), serbiem, īriem, slovākiem, ko arī filmā daudzkārt sajūsmināti citē. Taču viņš runā par asimilāciju, nevis genocīdu."

CITATION 338 ERROR The citation is a review or critique of _"The Lost Literature of Socialism by Watson" which argues against his argument. In it, the reviewer says that _"Watson's evidence seems dubious" and he also accuses the author of misquoting Marx: _"(..)what Marx and Engels are calling for is not very amiable, being at the very least a kind of cultural genocide, but it is not obvious, at least from Watson's citations, that actual mass killing, rather than (to use their phraseology) mere 'absorption' or 'assimilation', is in question"

Why does this sentence exist, again? BOTH citations are contrary to the original claim. Are Wikipedia now including literally ANY quote made by a famous person or professor, no matter what their actual argument is? Maybe if I wear a Phd badge, I get to say "drinking pee can cure cancer" and the wikipedia editors will applaud it as I put 2 fake citations on my "fact", or sorry I meant, "argument"? As far as I found, there is NO instance of Karl Marx advocating genocide. That is a fact. TKKtget72527252 (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

I question why Watson is mentioned at all. He isn't an expert and his book has not been recognized by any scholars. His claim that Communists were inspired by forgotten writings of Marx (some written before he became a socialist) is conspiracism. His view that Marxism is right-wing also departs from mainstream interpretations and even the interpretations of the most extreme anti-Communists. TFD (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Democratic communism (which is currently a redirect page to the article Communism) on the Teahouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Radqueer_and_Democratic_communism_could_be_articles_rather_than_redirects ~2026-73469-7 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe include there's an emoji

There's an emoji: ☭ ~2026-11645-74 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Already included in the article hammer and sickle, which is what the symbol (not emoji) actually is. Yue🌙 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Joseph Stalin in 1932 (4) (cropped)(2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Minor spelling mistake

Theres a minor spelling mistake under the “Analysis” tab. “In terms of education, the two areas enjoyed universal adult literacy and full enrolment [sic] of children in primary and secondary schools.” ~2026-17781-99 (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Changed from British to American spelling per the existing English standard (tag at the top of the article). Yue🌙 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding information about the Russian Civil War and the establishment of the Soviet Union to the history section

The current History section devotes a significant amount of space to describing the political changes following the October Revolution and the internal situation within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; however, this may not accurately reflect how this period is described in reliable sources. The text in the Encyclopædia Britannica devoted to War Communism is nearly as extensive as that covering the Russian Civil War, and the same is true in Communism: A Very Short Introduction. As I understand it, this is a very important article, so I intend to bring this topic here for at least a week to solicit feedback before proceeding with further additions. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 21:34, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You said "reliable sources". I am not convinced that Encyclopædia Britannica is at all reliable for this topic, since it is not a topic-relevant publication. Plus, where is its reputation for fact-checking? Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dimadick: 1. EB has been cited more than ten times in the current version. 2. Wikipedia:BRITANNICA. 3. Even if you don't agree with EB's assessment, that's perfectly fine—let's just look at a few other sources to see what the situation is:

• Communism: A Very Short Introduction, as I have said above. Also a citation from the current version.
• The Cambridge History of Communism: Volume I: covering the Civil War and the October Revolution in a ratio of roughly 1:2 to 1:1.
• Richard Pipes' Communism: A History: The October Revolution section is slightly shorter than the Civil War section; the ratio of text is roughly 1:1.

ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 17:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Since no one supported it and no one opposed it, I expanded this section significantly. The evaluation section still needs to be done, and I'll decide how best to organize the final part after I've read through the literature. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 02:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Leader image

This article could really use a leader image. Maybe a map of the Soviet Union, the most powerful communist country ever? But that seems like it’s too specific for one country. Or maybe the Russian Revolution?

I believe the corresponding articles for Socialism and Capitalism also could use a leader image. Ethan (Emholt1)  :) (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The fact that you can't decide on a good image or the validity of your own proposals is why the lead should probably be left devoid of images. Yue🌙 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible citation for claim about social anarchism and post-leftism

The anarchy index on marxists.org describes the influence of Marxism on anarcho-syndicalism, post-left anarchists like Murray Bookchin. https://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm

Alternatively, the book "From Bakunin to Lacan" describes how critiques of Marx influenced anarchism, as well as how Marx's economic critique of capitalism was taken as a serious by anarchists. Phe-ndv (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

"Anarchism in communism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anarchism in communism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 22 § Communism in Anarchism until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Communism is not a ideology

Trying to label communism as a "ideology" all over the article is a error, in my opinion. What Engels has to say about ideology in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy:

"Every ideology, however, once it has arisen, develops in connection with the given concept-material, and develops this material further; otherwise, it would not be an ideology, that is, occupation with thoughts as with independent entities, developing independently and subject only to their own laws. In the last analysis, the material life conditions of the persons inside whose heads this thought process goes on determine the course of the process, which of necessity remains unknown to these persons, for otherwise there would be an end to all ideology"

I think a better article description would be what Engels answered himself in Principles of Communism:

"What is Communism?

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat."

Even if you argue that not all of "communism" is "marxism", the error still persists in my opinion Wikipederie (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

That is like saying Christianity should not be called a religion because Jesus did not call it a religion. It is a mistake to treat the words of Marx and Engels like scripture. From a policy standpoint, not an appropriate use of a primary source. Yue🌙 (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yue No one is treating the works of M&E as a scripture here. The thing is that the description of the forerunners of the modern communist is incompatible with that of a ideolpgy. Do you know more about Marx and Engels to call communism a ideology? On whar basis, besides empirical knowledge, do you call communism a "ideology"?

I do not see how I am doing "original research" here to be honest. What would be a "secondary source" to communism? Lenin? Wikipederie (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yue Not mentioning the structure of your argument here

"That is like saying Christianity should not be called a religion because Jesus did not call it a religion."

That is not the same thing at all. Comparing a working masses movement to a religion is comparing doors to windows. The forerunners of modern socialism to a messiah is a laughable.

Besides, it is atributted to Jesus the saying "upon tbis rock you will build my church etc." Like if he said "we're not doing a religion here" it would be a pretty strong case for not calling it a religion

"It is a mistake to treat the words of Marx and Engels like scripture."

I am only citing the forerunners of modern socialism on their description of the movement. I can't think of a case to call communism a "ideology".

"primary source"

1. This is not history

2. Already said but what trusted secondary source calls communism a ""ideology""? Wikipederie (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yue Also theres no real objection against what Engels said here Wikipederie (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)