Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation. Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Eastern Europe case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first.
view·edit Frequently asked questions
This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.
To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question.
General Concerns and Questions
Q1: Why does this article exist?
A1: This article exists because so far there has been no consensus to delete it. The latest AfD (2021) said that the Misplaced Pages editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic. Six discussions to delete this article have been held, none of them resulting in a deletion:
Q2: Why isn't there also an article for "Mass killings under _________ regimes"? Isn't this title biased?
A2: Each article must stand on its own merits, as justified by its sources. The existence (or not) of some other similar article does not determine the existence of this one, and vice versa. Having said that, there are other articles such as Anti-communist mass killings and Genocide of indigenous peoples which also exist. This article has a descriptive title arrived at by consensus in November 2009.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Due to the editing restrictions on this article, a sub-page has been created to serve as a collaborative workspace or dumping ground for additional article material.
Requested move 31 July 2019
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Now I know many sources refers and uses Communist state, but in practice they all refer to this, a Marxist–Leninist state; Communism as state ownership of the means of production rather than as a classless, moneyless and stateless society society under common ownership; and Marxist–Leninist state or Marxist–Leninist regime have been used anyway. I would argue it's also a non-neutral title in that it refers to a specific ideology (Marxism–Leninism), but calls it communism, which is much more than Marxism–Leninism.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I don't have any meaningful opinion on this requested move. I would like to say, however, that this might exclude China, Cambodia and NorthKorea for example. Maybe also Vietnam and some other cases described in the article. I would just like to point out this issue. RhinoMind (talk) 01:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I don't think it would exclude them because all the states you listed are also Marxist–Leninists. Indeed, Maoism and others are all considered variants of Marxism–Leninism; or as they proclaim themselves to be, Marxism–Leninism adopted to their respective country's conditions. Only North Korea ceased to be one following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the 1990s and later with the Constitution revisions as it adopted Juche and Songun; there're also doubts on whether the Khmer Rougue was actually communist in any meaningful way, whether it was Marxist–Leninist or even Maoist, but I let realiable sources decide.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
NK is not Marxist and definitely not Leninist. KR were not Leninist: their vehement anti-urbanism was a direct negation of the core of Leninist idea. Frankly, the word "Communist" also does not satisfies me: it is an umbrella term used by some Western writers to label a certain category of hostile states, but we have to live with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but the truth is that all these so-called Communist regimes were Marxist–Leninists. Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism; it's basically like National Socialism which is far-right, German fascism and not socialism in any way; I mean in the sense of the ideology being missnamed since it isn't actually what it claims or name itself to be. Marxism–Leninism was developed and codified by Stalin and as a result it's basically Stalinism (theory); and what is referred as Stalinism is nothing but Marxism–Leninism in practice or simply Stalin's policies (practice). Thus, all so-called Communist regimes were Marxist–Leninist but not all were necessarily Stalinist; see Yugoslavia, which mainted many Marxist–Leninist precepts (one-party state, socialism in one country, etc.) but didn't have exactly the same economic policies of orthodox Marxism–Leninism (this was justified in that Titoism, just like Maoism and all other -isms are simply Marxism–Leninism adapted to their respectve countries cultures and material conditions). North Korea officially stopped being Marxism–Leninism (then again, it could be argued that it never stopped, that Juche and Songun are simply policies that were adopted due to changing material conditions; Marxism–Leninism could basically be used to justified anything and any policy, really) in the 1990s, although it could be argued it stopped in the 1970s with the first adoption of Juche and that Juche itself isn't overwhelming considered communist. Either way, I reiterate that the page the word communist in the title should be changed to Marxist–Leninist because when sources describe these Communist regimes, they're describing Marxist–Leninist regimes; they just call it Communism because ever since the Cold War Communism basically meant Bolshevism and Marxism–Leninism and not communism. Hell, there was a 1950s propaganda in the United States to describe itself as a "classless society of prospering workers versus societies of "slaves" in the Soviet Union and China". Finally, I believe this to be a more accurate and neutral name and that this accuracy is "worth the loss in recognizability/naturalness".--87.17.95.218 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. We list titles according to their WP:COMMONNAME, so that the average reader will quickly know they have found the right article by looking at the title. The common name of the regimes listed here is "communist", not "Marxist-Leninist". Rreagan007 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, then it should be capitalised since that's how the word is used in many sources; just like Italian Fascism and National Socialism are all capitalised, so Communism and Communist state were capitalised for the same reason to refer to a specific ideology, Marxism–Leninism; a state governed by a communist party that follows Marxism–Leninism, etc. Either way, what to do in cases like these where a word means literally the opposite of what some people understand? What to do when the word Communism is used to refer to a specific model, Marxism–Leninism; and when it's basically used as a synonym to refer to that? Should we call an apple apple or orange, even if the source itself aknowledge it's an apple but calls it orange anyway?--80.180.196.242 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we should call it an orange. Egg creams contain neither egg nor cream, but we call them 'egg creams' because that's what RS overwhelmingly use. WP:COMMONNAME does have the following exception: Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. But I think it would be hard to make such an argument work in this case. You'd have to show clear RS agreement that the common name is inaccurate, and RS support for the proposed name. And there would still need to be agreement that the gain in accuracy is worth the loss in recognizability/naturalness. Colin M (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. That's exactly what I was saying and referring to. I thought my argument work in this case, but I could be wrong. It's not a big deal to me; I will respect the decision, I just wanted to try to see other users' thoughts and have a dicussion about it. I don't think that was WP:OR because "Sources say X, but what they really mean/should be saying is Y", I think you misunderstood me; what I meant was that "Sources say X, even though they known it's Y and basically speak about Y, they state it's Y but call it X anyway". Besides, all these Communist regimes followed Marxism–Leninism, or one of its variants; as they said, Marxism–Leninism adapted to the country's conditions. I'm not even saying that the common name is inaccurate; I'm just saying that Communist state means Marxist–Leninist state; that the article is about regimes that were Marxist–Leninists; that per WP:COMMONNAME sources capitalise it; and instead it just causes even more confusion because then it equates communism as a whole with Marxism–Leninism; that communism means state ownership of the means of production, totalitarianism, etc. rather than a classless, moneyless and stateless society under common ownership of the means of production, etc. and thus could be considered in violation of WP:NPOV, but I could be wrong. I don't want to impose my views, I just want to discuss and try to help.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "Sources say X, but what they really mean/should be saying is Y" is an argument based in WP:OR. Incidentally, I noticed a large change made by nominator a couple days ago at History of communism, in which they replaced many instances of 'communist' (and a few of 'socialist' and 'stalinist') with 'Marxist-Leninist'. I didn't revert because I'm far from a subject matter expert on this, and the diff included some good cleanup, but in light of these iffy RMs, I think nominator may be going overboard in their attempts to overhaul this terminology across Misplaced Pages based on a narrow interpretation of sources. Colin M (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I did that simply because the text was referring to Marxism–Leninism. I also put the missing information template exactly because the article's history section refers to the history of Marxism–Leninism; no mention of libertarian communism, no mention of 1968, the New Left, the Vietnam War and no mention of all the antagonism and criticism between Marxists–Leninists and other communists, etc.-80.180.196.242 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I'm disappointed that no one, beside a precious few who also seemed dissatisfied with the current name but may disagree with my proposal, actually replied to my objections and no one actually provided a single source; even if it's a fact, that doesn't mean sources shouldn't be provided for. I don't even dispute that Communism is the WP:COMMONNAME, although I repeat once again that by the same logic the word should be capitalised in the title since that's what many sources do and they do it exactly to distinquish between communism and Marxism–Leninism. I'm just saying that I believe accuracy and WP:NPOV triumph in this specific case and that this is justified in being an exception. If you disagree with this, fine; but at least reply to my objections, which some did but stopped now; and do it with sources, which no one did as of now. I have no problem accepting whatever decision will be final, but I would have liked to have a more thorough discussion and sharing of sources.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The capitalization question is a knotty one. I'd say that in my reading I've come across both versions an equal number of times. That being so, I'd stick with the current status quo, on the deep philosophical grounds "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I have come across the same. I just want to know if I'm right in my reasoning in that whether it is Communist regime or Marxist–Leninist regime, they're referring to and talking about the same thing; but I'm wrong in my proposal in that the WP:COMMONAME is Communism, even if by that is meant Marxism–Leninism or one of its variants; and that's all I ask for and want to know. I agree that "Don't fix it if it ain't broke", but the thing is that both Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes and Mass killing under communist regimes should be uniformed; either both are capitalised or neither should be.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't see that Communist vs. communist is all that big a deal. If forced to make a decision, I'd probably go with small "c", because big "C" implies that all communist regimes have the same ideology, and that's really not the case. Looking at the analogous situation with "Fascism" vs. "fascism", I believe that standard usage is that big "F" Fascism refers to the original fascists in Italy, and small "f" fascism refers to it and all the other versions in various countries, including Nazism. On that model, I'd go with big "C" Communism meaning the first real-world instance of it in a state, also called "Marxist-Leninism" ("Marxism" would be theoretical communism as envisaged by Marx and Engels, which has never been put into effect by anybody, abywhere), and small "c" communism would include that plus all the other versions, such as Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not a big deal to me either, but I value consistency and thus either both pages should be capitalised or neither should be. I remember an old discussion where it was stated that Communism was capitalised because it was a short way to refer to a Communist Party-state regime. I would also argue that Communism is capitalised the same reason Fascism is when referring to the original fascists in Italy, namely that Communism refers to Bolsheviks/Marxism–Leninism and its variants; and thus this could be a reason to capitalised, but I could be wrong. I'm glad you recognise the difference between classical Marxism, or Marxism as as envisaged by Marx and Engels, and Marxism–Leninism. Then again, it could be argued that Stalinism, Maoism, etc. aren't actually communist (otherwhise, anyone that wishes a classless, moneyless and stateless society is; the means also matters) just because they see communism in the far future, but rather state socialists (in practice, state capitalists). They're like the Lassallian socialist state; unlike Lassalle, they see communism as the end goal, but in practice both are state socialists rather than communists, although they be nominally communists in the sense of having it as a long-term goal. This is just my opinion based on my own reaserch and I could be wrong; I just wanted to state it.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
I apologise for making another request and I hope it's not a problem, but I have accepted the previous result and this one is mainly based on consistency since the Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes page is capitalised. I would support this move based on WP:COMMON NAME. I don't know which one is more common; I believe when it isn't capitalised it's only because communism is considered a noun, but it's also just as often capitalised both to distinquish it from communism and because the word Communism is used to refer to the Communist Party-state rule rather than communism. Either way, please vote on talk pages whether you want both of them to be capitalised or not. Thank you.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: It's always me. Thank you for your comments. @Beyond My Ken: I apologise for that, I'm not trying to be disruptive; I'm just trying to be bold and I thought talk pages were all about discussions and to reach a consensus. I made this request only to keep consistency. Anyway, I will stop open new discussion to many different pages; I have decided to take all my concerns to Portal:Communism, which is probably what I should have done since the beginning. Anyway, thanks for your attention.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: That's exactly what I was talking about. Criticism of communism (which should actually be a page and not just a disambiguation page) should be about general criticism of communism as a whole whereas in all other cases it refers to a specific form of communism, i.e. states governed by a Marxist–Leninist communist party. LGBT rights under communism refers to LGBT rights under all communism and not just one variant, so it makes sense to leave it as it is now.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fail to see how Communism (capitalized) means Marxism-Leninism. And that discussion is already closed, by the way, not sure if you are just trying to prove a point here (see WP:POINT). For what is worth, a quick search on JSTOR yields these: so-called "really existing socialism" or more briefly "communist regimes", communist regimes, Communist regimes, post-communist regimes... it seems the uncapitalized form might have wider use, not sure, this is a small sample, but I don't see anything suggesting that using the capitalized form conveys a distinctive and well-defined meaning to the reader. --MarioGom (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I thought Communism was capitalised specifically to refer to that and not to what is described in the communism lead section; indeed, I remember reading in the talk of the page in which the word is capitalised that the reason was it was referring to Communist Party-state rule. I agree it's probably more used in the uncapitalised way, but I'm not sure and don't know how to 100% verify that. Anyway, thanks for doing that research for me; could you also search what does it yields if you search for communist state and Marxist–Leninist state? All I'm saying is: doesn't words such as really existing socialism or communist regimes refer to socialist states governed by a Marxist–Leninist party? And isn't the word communist regimes used to refer to states that follow Marxism–Leninism (the official state ideology of the Soviet Union, of the parties of the Communist International after Bolshevisation and the ideology of Stalinist political parties) rather than a regime that follows communism as the socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state? Do you agree with me that all these sources are nonetheless talking about socialist states governed by a Marxist–Leninist party rather than communism as a whole? That's all I'm asking for; forget about the moves and everything else, just tell me whether I'm right or wrong in saying that the word communist regimes refers to socialist states governed by a Marxist–Leninist party (which is what you also stated in Talk:Communist state, or maybe I misunderstood you)? Just reply to this question; it's all I need to know. Because even if I'm right, I know and I understand it won't change anything because I realise sources use communist regimes, communism instead of Marxism–Leninism, etc. I just want to have a confirmation in my belief that even if I'm not necessarily wrong per se in my arguments and reasons, or perhaps even if I'm actually right, it wouldn't change anything because the sources say communism, even if by that they don't mean the socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state but the official state ideology of the Soviet Union, of the parties of the Communist International after Bolshevisation and the ideology of Stalinist political parties and I have to accept that. Thank you for the attention.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
In order to avoid an endless discussion on a move request, I'll comment in this discussion only about the capitalization issue. I see other problems with the substance of some of these articles but these should be treated separately. Yes, all sources I checked here are referring to really existing socialism or socialist states governed by a communist party, which are essentially the same thing. --MarioGom (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: @MarioGom: Thank you very much for your reply. So, doesn't that mean I'm right, that sources using communism are actually referring to really existing socialism or socialist states governed by a communist party (a communist party following Marxism–Leninism)? Then why not actually using Marxism–Leninism in the title or text when it's clearly referring to that? Is there any doubt that some states didn't follow Marxism–Leninism, even though my research lead me to believe that they all followed Marxism–Leninism (one-party state, socialism in one country, etc.) in one form or another? Then by the same logic, if communism is the common name that actually refers to these regimes, then we should actually change the whole lead of communism to reflect this; I would be opposed to this, but if that's what the sources say, there's nothing I can do about it; and I value consistency and accept the rules.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
These sources indicate that lowercase "c" for "communist regime" is commonly used, and that there is no apparent difference in meaning with sources that choose to use uppercase "C". I would like to remind you that this request is about changing capitalization of the word "communist", not about renaming to "Marxist-Leninist" (that one was closed already). --MarioGom (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment: @MarioGom: Then the question is: which one is the more used? Capitalised or uncaptalised? If uncapitaised is the more used, then that should be the one used.--82.53.106.200 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Support most sources capitalize Communist. As explained by Sara Diamond, "I use uppercase "C" Communism to refer to actually existing governments and movements and lowercase "c" communism to refer to the varied movements and political currents organized around the ideal of a classless society." "communist regime" is an oxymoron, since communism means the state has ceased to exist. TFD (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment:TFD, "most sources" seems inaccurate here. See my comment above: Special:Diff/911007739. At least by a random search on JSTOR, "communist regimes" appears to be more common than "Communist regimes" in academic literature. --MarioGom (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how scientific that is. Certainly the Black Book capitalizes Communist in Communist regime. You might want to search on the word "Communist" rather than Communist regime. TFD (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
TFD: As I mentioned initially, not so scientific, but it's a start. I'm looking for "communist regimes" and not plainly "communist" or "communism", because I was looking for common capitalization for this exact usage. The article title doesn't say "under communism"/"under Communism", it says "communist regimes". Usage of other variations of the word in different contexts is not necessarily useful. --MarioGom (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you would do that. "Communist regime" is not a phrase. It merely means the government is fully under the control of the local Communist Party. It could be called a Communist state, socialist state or any of a number of things. Regardless of the frequency of use, it would seem to make more sense to use the most precise term. TFD (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I think that we should pay attention not to the name of the page, but to its essence. This article is primarily about the Marxist–Leninist regimes. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Navboxes
User:Гармонический Мир is removing the "Communism" navbox from the article. Is there some reason that navbox isn't appropriate? I know that they prefer the "Marxism-Leninism" navbox instead, despite the article being specifically about "communist regimes" and not "Marxist-Leninist regimes". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Note: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues.
.svg){kind=small}
,_Emblem_of_Russia_(1991%E2%80%931992).svg)
