Template talk:Communism sidebar

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Template	This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy Related task forces (major traditions): Marxism Related task forces (periods): Contemporary philosophy

Template:Maoism sidebar

Template talk:Communism/Archive 1 Template talk:Communism/Archive 2

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Template colours

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The template should have red as its main colour, and yellow as a secondary colour

[edit] Support

[edit] The template should have pale blue as its main colour

[edit] Support

[edit] The template should have white as its main colour

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Image

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] The template should use an image of a yellow sickle on a red background

[edit] Support

[edit] The template should not include an image

[edit] Support

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Basic concepts

[edit] The template should have a brief list, including Marxism, Leninism, Communist party and Class struggle

[edit] Support

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

[edit] Support

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] This section should not be included; Marxism and Leninism should appear under the Schools of communism section

[edit] Support

[edit] 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)

[edit] Prominent communists

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] This section should not be included

[edit] Support

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Communist groups

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] An extended section entitled "Communist organizations", also including the Communist Workers International and the International Communist Party, should be included

[edit] Support

[edit] This section should not be included

</