From 1d4chan

Discussion Regarding Communism Killing Millions of People and Being Inefficient And Its Relation To a Accurate Description of the Ideology[edit]

My argument[edit]

Some anons have have decided that the fact that communism resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people and eventually failed economically is not an important thing to discuss in an article about communism. They believe that stating the empirical fact that communism failed is an ideologically driven agenda. I disagree. I think it is critical to an accurate description of the ideology and critical to understanding why communists are portrayed they way they are in movies, vidya, and /tg/. Communism is an economic system, the ability of communism to generate economic activity is therefore important to discuss. Communism is also a moral system, the ability of communism to produce a moral society is therefore important to discuss. If /tg/ had an article about an airplane, the ability of the airplane to fly is essential to the article. I think that attempts to delete the economic and moral results of an economic and moral system, because those results reflect badly on that system, are by far more ideologically driven than attempts to describe them. Part of the problem that we are having in this disagreement is that we are confusing the communism of philosophy/ideology with the communism of fact. This too is important to discuss in the article. Communism of philosophy is a powerful vision of an ideal society that has motivated tens of millions to strife for it. Communism of fact is a hellscape of death and poverty that motivated tens of millions to flee from it. This dichotomy is the reason that so many people portray communism positively and also why so many portray it negatively. How those two sides portray communism in movies, vidya, and tg is important to understanding the subject and should be explained in the article. Some anons have disputed the theoretical and empirical facts. so i will present the facts with citations here:

For these reasons i will revert the delete.--Kapow (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Most of those things are related to the brutal, repressive governments of communist states rather than the economic system communism in and of itself. And none of them belong here, on a wiki about tabletop games mentioning a broad outline of communist theory and history, followed (theoretically) by a broad outline of its uses in tabletop gaming. And you are not helping yourself on the "politico wonk grinding his axe at the expense of the general quality of the wiki" count. --SpectralTime (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing the communism of theory and the communism of fact. Both communisms should be represented in this article becasue they are both important to /tg/. for example, the idealistic communism is prevalent in many eclipse phase factions and the factual communism is represented in the imperium of man. further, economic systems are not divorced from ethics, they all have assumptions about human rights. for example, slavery is an economic system and no one could plausibly argue that it has no moral consequences.--Kapow (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The factual accuracy of your statements are utterly irrelevant. This is not a wiki for that information, and it is already covered better and more-even-handedly in a fraction of the wordage in the body of the article. I have attempted to do what this article really needed and track down communist themes in tabletop gaming in general. If you really want to fix it, do that instead. Good catch on Eclipse Phase though. Adding. --SpectralTime (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It is relevent because many factions get their inspiration from them. flames of war has the soviet union as a playable army. it is completely relevent. so this is what im going to do, im going to make a theory section and a practice section in the main body then after those section there will be a main heading that lists several communist inspired /tg/ factions.--Kapow (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
We need politics of all types to stay the fuck off this wiki, and this does the exact opposite. If anyone wants to see "communism in practice", direct them to a history book.--Newerfag (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The imperium of man is a hellscape dystopia that is primarily inspired by the soviet union. the reasons why the soviet union inspired the imperium of man are essential to its relation to /tg/. NOT including those reasons is MORE political than including them.--Kapow (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
It's a mishmash of every totalitarian state out there, hence the nickname "Catholic Space Nazis". If it was really inspired by the USSR, then why is the Ecclesiarchy a thing? Plus, all those nobles shouldn't exist if it's really inspired by the Soviet Union. All you're doing is trying to "correct" left-wing extremism with whitwashed right-wing extremism. They can both fuck off as far as I'm concerned. --Newerfag (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
yes it is a cominbation of many. soviet union and its suppression of free throught, catholicism and its hunting of witches, and nazism in its deification of the leader and xenophobia. i am not "right wing", unless empiricism and reason are considered right wing on your book. i dont even know what "whitewashed" even means in this context. and you are right, we dont know anything about economics, which is why we rely on the judgement of professionals in the field of economics, and they say that communism failed. the idea that politics and economics cannot be discussed ON AN ARTICLE ABOUT A ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SYSTEM IS RETARDED. im reverting your delete.--Kapow (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
...I was gonna put it more politely, but what he said. --SpectralTime (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The Road to Serfdom is Cold War propaganda and frankly the claim about central planning is bunk. The US, Canada, UK and Australia all engaged in centrally planned programs in WWII as part of war production which resulted in none of them becoming totalitarian. Nazi Germany was more reticent to engage in such policies (only committing it's economy to total war in 1943). --A Walrus (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
actually it was written during WWII, not the cold war, so to call it cold war propaganda is factually incorrect.--Kapow (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
In which case it perdicted something which did not actually happen (Central Planning in regards to war production leading to totalitarianism). There were also cases of central planning being used in peacetime by other countries to help develop their economies which did not lead to totalitarianism (for example in Meiji Japan the government built factories it thought it needed, operated them until they were reliably profitable before giving them to their managers which led to rapid development of the Japanese economy from 1870-1900).--A Walrus (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
No one is claiming that a mixed economy such as japan's is going to lead to serfdom. the US and britain did not go into 'serfdom' because they dismantled their centrally planned wartime economies. the USSR did not dismantle their centrally planned economy, suffed massive shortages, and eventually collapsed. if you guys think communism is so fuck awesome then where the examples of awesome communism? can anyone point one out? no you cant. anyway, when it comes down to it, i am more willing to take the word of professional economists over the word of random people on the internet. and here is the bigger problem, you guys are now trying to drown out TWO SENTENCES in the entire article. the only two sentences that reference actual economists. who is the real ideologue here?--Kapow (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
>Milton Friedman
>Real economist
Go home son. You're drunk, and I don't want your daughter to see you like this. Face it, Newerfag's got your number. We've all had to watch articles we've put lots of work in get wiped in the past. Now you have too. It sucks, I know, but it happens, and there's nothing to be done about it. --SpectralTime (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
yes, milton friedman won a nobel prize in economics and taught at one of the most prestigious economics school in the world, university of chicago, and basically founded monetarism. he is a real are now reduced to meaningless namecalling.--Kapow (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
He also once had to have his supposedly-libertarian policies enforced with tanks. Third-world nations that are crumbling trying to implement them while the World Bank and IMF, packed with his disciples, pull the noose tighter every time they try to subsidize their subsistence farmers so they won't literally starve competing with heavily-subsidized American grain products. You're right that he's a technically-proficient theorist, but a "real economist" is concerned with practical solutions rather than ideological purity, and, much like you, he is too much of an ideologue to ever actually concern himself with the practical where it would come into conflict with the theory. --SpectralTime (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Can it, the both of you. Either we rewrite the article so it focuses on the USSR and nothing else if only to create actual objectivity as opposed to slapfights over the virtues of economic systems that you can't defend without parroting someone else's ideas, or we can leave it as is and continue fighting pointlessly over an article whose relevance has remained dubious at best. What's it going to be, then? --Newerfag (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
In any event, it seems like the flamebait potential for this page is making it very clear that it's more trouble than it's worth. A page for the Soviet Union would be fine, since it's the thing with the actual tabletop game relevance- but a page on communism proper is not. We're not political scientists, we're not economists, we're just neckbeards. So I propose we either recreate the article to focus on the Soviet Union and nothing else or scrap it outright. --Newerfag (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I stayed quiet on this, but let's just end this by bringing in common sense. Do some fictional tabletop settings use communism? Yes? All right, let's add a page describing the general idea of it. Do we need to bring in personal opinion on it about whether or not the entire idea is corrupt? No. That has nothing to do with any tabletop game that might use communism. If the tabletop game that uses it is based on the Soviet Union then you should link to a page on the USSR, or mention it relating to the USSR in the page itself, not communism. If you're going to claim we should add something about real life communism because it's related, then there's no real end to that, and you could add literally fucking anything. Let's just add a paragraph about the comic "Red Son" while we're at it, it's about as relevant as saying that real world governments are completely accurate versions of the idea behind communism rather than terrible people doing terrible things with what they were given because they were the ones put in power. -- Triacom (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Alright my two cents on this is if we are going to put real world examples of communism and the economic and social fall out of said systems we got to limit it down. Honestly make something like this, with a brief two or three sentences following it
  • USSR:What most people think of when they think of communist nations due to them being a former superpower. Got rid of the old russian empire and replaced it with a system almost as corrupt as the old one.
Something like that without getting too political about it is probably going to be for the best. If you want more in depth info on the USSR then make a page for it or go to another site. Honestly what would be even better is if we did a typical day for a person in said country or how it is viewed, so people can use it as a roleplay resource and setting infoDragoon508 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Where is the tabletop relevance in current article[edit]

I can see the use of a page that listed and described communist inspired splats and factions or talked about cold war inspired game lines. There is a degree of /tg/ works and meme's that could be tied to communism as well. The article as it currently exists has basically no tabletop or /tg/ related information outside of a single homebrew reference and a few tau and commissar jokes. This article badly needs reediting and a actual tabletop focus. -- (talk)

Yeah, I agree. tbh, I think this article should just link to the wikipedia page for Communism. --Garter snake (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I think it is fine as is. It provides a quick look at what communism is. It is mainly used as a reference page and not for instance propaganda. If you are set on removing it then you may as well remove the Roman Empire and china pages as well as not being /tg/ related.Dragoon508 (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that this page shouldn't describe what communism is but there is a wealth of Communists inspired characters, game lines (cold war based especially), and factions that should be included. If this page wants to be a useful reference for communism as related to tabletop gaming then it absolutely needs to have some tabletop related information in it. -- (talk)
Ah I misunderstood your point then. I agree there probably should be a section in it just related to communisim setting and tabletop stuff. One that springs to mind is the obama homebrew setction where he is a puppet for the soviet union and the remains of the US are lead by the undead founding fathers while they fight off the nazis who invaded as well.Dragoon508 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean Deathworld?--Emerald Claw (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"It is a sacred law of tg alternate history homebrew settings that there must be at least one communist faction and it must control at least 50% of the world's total landmass." That sounds /tg/ related to me.--Emerald Claw (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Why deleting a large portion that doesn't conform to your own personal tastes is wrong[edit]

Regardless of everything else that was written in the discussion page, deleting the main idea of communism itself is harmful to the wiki because of how many fictional areas/races on the wiki are described as communists, and by deleting the pros/cons of it you're cheating the reader of a more in-depth analysis of it. There's no reason to remove detail on something that can only inform the viewer and is related to the wiki itself, by doing this you're making the wiki a worse place just because YOU didn't like the page as it existed, and were too lazy to change it in any meaningful way. -- Triacom (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Methinks Forgefather's point is that said analysis is nether required nor particularly desirable for the article to work in the first place.
When did we have to give ridiculously long explanations for things it could take maybe 5 seconds to look up on Wikipedia, or start assuming that everyone who looked up the page knew absolutely nothing at all about the page's subject= should we create pages defining pens and paper as well next? It's not informing people so much as insulting their intelligence and shifting the main point of the article away from how it might be actually relevant to /tg/ itself. THAT is what this and all other historical 1d4chan articles should focus on, as opposed to acting as a substitute for the history classes that I should certainly hope we all took in school.
The fact that this has been an issue for months now should be a sign that maybe all the people in the past who have complained about it have a point that people such as yourself are obstinately refusing to acknowledge.--Newerfag (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
1d4chan is not a discussion hub for the pros and cons of Communism. Anyone wanting a more complete answer on the subject may consult the Encyclopedia Britannica if they are so inclined. If I was interested in promoting my own personal tastes, I would have deleted one side of the argument whilst keeping the other, something which has occurred with this page in the past more than once. This is a /tg/ wiki, not a /pol/ or /leftypol/ wiki. Placing "both sides of the argument" just results in passive-aggressive strikethroughs being made as each side battles over the article; it's better to just avoid it entirely.
What your issue is with people "not liking pages" is a mystery to me. All pages are changed because an editor didn't like the current incarnation; nay other reasons given are just explanations for why he didn't like it.--The Forgefather (talk)
Why does this page exist? If you try to make a page about communism, it easily becomes serious too fast, and serious is nothing that we want. Especially if it's the type of serious that makes people fight each other. And communism is serious enough that people would need to read about it from other sources than 1d4chan.

The ones that want this page to exist, would never feel justice by the people who find this page unnecessary. And there will always be skub. So please, let's just keep this clean? -User:The Awkward Man

Some Edits[edit]

I think it's slanderous to call Marx a NEET because he was technically a writer, and calling Engels a hypocrite is less funny than calling him the Horus class traitor of the rich. Also, the religion section was an unorganized mess so I rectified it and made it more relevant to 40K, since Lenin and the God Emperor are both corpse emperors that got worshipped despite specific instructions not to do that. -QuickEdits123 --QuickEdits123 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What about older instances of communism like in the book utopia?[edit]

Shouldn't this article at least mention the book Utopia from Thomas Morus? All I can see are the views of Marx and Engels who are 1.) not the first with that idea 2.) wrote specifically about the proletariat of the 19/20 century (you know those guys how become more and more obsolete with robots and automation) and 3.) brought into the debate a lot of other stuff like critic of religion. Especially for the fantasy or 40k setting the religion "friendly" (as in mandatory) works of Thomas Morus might be a good view point.


I dunno if it's me being permanently drunk or sadness of loosing my trusty balalaika is just so overwhelming it clouds my judgement but i can't seem to find any of my degenerated worker parents only some old lady that wouldn't shut up about her classic literature. Seriously though does this belong on a tabletop related site? Because the first half looks like it doesn't.