Talk:Communist state/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Reverts by CJK

CJK, you almost integrally reverted my edits of 23 November, saying that both sides are already shown and the edits give too much weight to the communist side of the arguement. There is not supposed to be a balance. What matters is how correct it all is. Readers can then make up their own minds. And the arguments I added weren't already there, so saying that both sides are already shown is a bit of nonsense.

Interrestingly, you didn't revert everything. Of course you left the typo corrections. But you also left one bit that was negative ("The rigid execution of economic plans..."), only tweaking it a bit to make it look only more negative. How transparent can one be? Or is it somehow a coincidence that you only kept that bit? Oh, it's not the only bit, I see now, so I exaggerated a bit. Anyway, I'd say the two criteria for adding stuff are 'is it true' and 'is it relevant'. The truth bit can be argued about. But the relevancy is obvious where the edit is a reaction to what is already there, because else that would have to go. Which in some cases would make sense. Such as saying that education is used for indoctrination. Well, of course it is, by definition. I left it, though, for two reasons. First, I generally prefer to add rather than delete. This is also a Wikipedia policy, I believe, so if you object to any edits, react to them rather than delete them (of course this shouldn't be taken too far). Secondly, I can imagine that enough people will have such impressions, so they should be dealt with and explained.

But ultimately, what I'd like to hear from you is why you object to specific edits. There are roughly 4 major ones and a few minor ones. Could you be more specific? DirkvdM 09:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph about communist parties which is unrelated to the concept of the communist state. The rest was mostly additions you made to the communist side of the arguement. That's not how it is supposed to work. We should give a part devoted to the communist side, then a part devoted to the anti-communist side without a back and forth debate that gives the communist side 2/3 of the space. The "education" comparison is erroneous because communist states saturate education with pro-communist propaganda on a far greater extent then capitalist nations. And then there was a totally unneccessary warning about how "the above is only about communist states". Of course it is about communist states, that's what this article is about. CJK 21:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The "education" comparison is erroneous because communist states saturate education with pro-communist propaganda on a far greater extent then capitalist nations.

How would you know? DJ Silverfish 02:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

as any objective person does. Dr. Trey 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Added after edit conflict with Squiddy below:

I don't see why there should be an equal distribution between pros and cons. What matters is what is true and relevant. So the specific issues count. And even after my additions, there is certainly not a '2/3 majority' in the defence of communist states. It's roughly equal.

Dividing the arguments in two sections seems to make sense, but when there is a counterargument to one argument that original argument would then have to be rehashed in the other section, which would be a bit awkward. Anyway, there is no such split at all, which rather invalidates your argument. Arguments already go back and forth. Except that that is split in separate paragraphs. May that be what you mean? If so, why not change it thus in stead of bluntly removing arguments (you don't like...?). But even that was not the case before (as in the education bit), so why did you leave that alone then?

About the education bit. I don't know how much emphasis was placed on the communist model. But I do know that in the West there is an extremely strong emphasis on the capitalist model. I've studied management and have thus had loads of economy classes. Apart from a short overview of various forms of communism, everything was focused on how a capitalist society works. Which makes perfect sense if the classes are given in a capitalist country. We need to learn to work in the society we live in. And the same of course applies to a 'communist' society (well, socialist, really, but let's not start about that here). So maybe that should be made a bit clearer, the way I put it here. Or completely remove the education bit. And then there's the use of the word 'compulsory'. That is added in such a way that it sound negative. But education in, say, the Netherlands is also compulsory, which is a good thing. So why mention it in the 'contra-section' in stead of the 'pro-section'?

And then there are several other reverts. Could you comment on those as well, please?DirkvdM 12:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Here are some thoughts on this argument, looking at the diffs here:

[1]

'Communist state' is not a controverial term to apply to the USSR and Soviet-era eastern bloc countries, but better than 'claimed by some' would be something like 'The governments of the Soviet bloc countries did not describe themselves as communist states, because...'

If Moldova has an elected communist government (I didn't know that), its worth a mention, but regional administrations don't really belong in an article about nation-states.

I don't like 'However, most poor capitalist countries have not managed to escape poverty either, so one may argue there is no statistical indication for a correlation between economic growth and the choice between capitalism and socialism.' How about 'There are, however, very poor capitalist countries, and high growth is possible in communist states, for example the annual growth China since the late 1980s is historically unprecedented (averaging over 9% pa)[2]'

how 'bout we say "However, Communist China has experienced high growth since the late 1980s, after Deng Xiaoping enacted market reforms that de-collectivized farming and loosened the state's overall control over the economy. Other Communist states such as Vietnam have shown similar GDP growth after market reforms as well."

and as we know high GDP growth is very possible in poor capitalist countries. how many times have i heard "well GDP isn't everything" when people're talking about Chile and Latin America in general.

if you're gonna talk about Communist growth (rather than growth in those states who've abandoned certain essential elements of Marxism) the best example would be the Stalinist USSR.

'Education is inherently a form of indoctrintion...' is a bit strident, but it is basically true, and the article shouldn't give the impression that wicked commies indoctrinate their population, while the west allows only sweet, sweet reason to prevail. I mean, for example, if you were educated in the USA, you will have pledged allegiance to the flag every day. In the UK, there are tie-ins with snack food companies providing educational materials to schools. 'Faith schools' are an issue in the UK at the moment, and their avowed intention is to educate children into a christian/jewish/muslim ethos.

what're you talking about? saluting the flag is a little different from being taught about the glories and perfection of Lenin and the Revolution in your history class. and i seem to remember being constantly reminded about what we did to the Indians in history class. so no, it's not the same.

and unless the snack food company is brainwashing kids about how great its brands are and how you should only buy them that's a little of a ridiculous comment.

' The Soviet practice of making it illegal to quit one's job, to hire a dissident, or to hire relatives, is regarded by the critics as tantamount to slavery. But the communist ideology arose largely because of the exploitation of workers in the 19th century, which was also likened to slavery.' 'regarded by critics' and 'which was also likened' are weasel wording (and there are other examples in this article). If notable economists or historians have said these things, quote and cite, otherwise it is OR and POV. Having two opposing weasel worded POVs together does not make NPOV.

'Also, communists may argue that (Capitalist) western countries have gathered much of their wealth through exploitation of workers, slavery and imperialism, but even if that were still done it would not be an excuse for others to do something similar.' This is plainly POV. It is not only communists who argue this, its a simple fact. Here is Adam Smith on slavery in the British West Indian Colonies: 'In our sugar colonies... the whole work is done by slaves, and in our tobacco colonies a very great part of it. The profits of a sugar plantation in any of our West Indian colonies are generally much greater than those of any other cultivation...' (Wealth of Nations, III.ii) (He was arguing that slavery is v. inefficient, BTW).

it's a fact that early on, yes, we utilized slavery. it's POV to state that that's a major reason for our long-term success. as for "exploitation" of workers, plenty of workers in the U.S. wouldn't call themselves exploited, and several low-wage workers in third world countries didn't have better jobs before. so yes, this is POV. as far as "imperialism" -- the U.S. does not directly govern any country besides itself -- so no. Dr. Trey 23:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

'Note that all of the above is about Communist states, not about Communism.' I don't think this disclaimer is necessary. People are going to assume that the article is about the subject in the title.

Sorry to witter on at such length. --Squiddy 12:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The bit about the various regional communist rules seems a bit out of place since they're regional, but the point of it is to illustrate the final point that a communist state is one in which the party holds a monopoly on political power. Since there are no such examples on a national level, these will have to do.

About the majority of poor capitalist countries. Given that there are dozens of those (at least half the countries in the world) on would sooner have to conclude the deficiency of capitalism. But for something so complex as socio-economics (ceterus is rarely paribus here) one would need a very wide statistical basis, somewhere in the vicinity of hundreds or rather thousands. Which we don't have - there simply aren't enough countries. In the case of communist states it's even worse - there's a mere handful, so no conclusions at all can be drawn. Scientifically speaking, that is, and we'd like to be scientific, don't we? :) But even worse, all these came about after revolutions, which is a very destructive process that makes any comparison invalid, unless one compares with other revolutionary dictatorships/oligarchies which are capitalist. Have any of those been successful? (This is not meant as a rhetorical question.) Here again I have left the text as it is and reacted to it (in stead of removing it, as seems to be CJK's preference - when it suits him, that is) because it's the sort of thing people may think, so it should be addressed.

We can draw plenty of conclusions about Communist states. There's not that much anymore but many countries have been Communist at one point or another and have experienced similar problems. Dr. Trey 23:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Having two opposing weasel worded POVs together does not make NPOV. I full heartedly agree. One may argue that many of my edits are counter-pov's, but like I said that's largely because I simply don't like to mute others and prefer to react ('add rather than substract' is, I believe, a Wikipedia policy).

Also, communists may argue.... That's CJK's wording, not mine. I wrote one may argue.... About the argument, do I understand that you mean the two sides can be argued but that it should be done differently (eg quoting Adam Smith)?

That the article is about communist states, not communism is by no means obvious considering phrases like communists argue in stead of supporters of communist states argue. There is a whole lot of confusion about the distinction between communism and communist states (which are arguably mutually exclusive). More importantly, most people think that communist states are communist (and who can blame them considering the terminology). So, even though that is already explained earlier in the article, it deserves t be pointed out once again here. DirkvdM 13:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

we should stick to the facts and avoid "so and so argues" as much as possible. Dr. Trey 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But a big problem there is which facts are relevant. And if the relevancy is debated and the fact is still mentioned then the dispute should be mentioned too, and that is easily formulated as 'one might argue' or such. DirkvdM 08:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That was really the point I was making with the Adam Smith quote - I don't think that quote should go in the article, and it wouldn't need to if the POVs about 'USSR like slavery' and 'ah, but 19th C capitalist countries also like slavery' were removed. The stuff about not employing dissidents, internal passports etc is fine and factual, but I think we should just dump the rest of that para. WP's 'expand rather than delete' preference doesnt really apply to chunks of POV-OR. Squiddy 11:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, getting back to why I reverted DirkvdM. Let's go through the major changes:

There have been and still exist countries where Communist parties have come to power through democratic elections, and ruled in the context of a multi-party democracy. Such situations can be found today in the Indian states of Kerala and West Bengal, the East European country of Moldova, and the French territory of Réunion. Communist parties have also taken part in democratic coalition governments in places like France and Italy. The region of Reiderland in the Netherlands received the nickname Little Moscow because the Dutch Communist Party (CPN) even had a majority from World War II until 1989 (when the party merged with other parties into GroenLinks). In the community of Finsterwolde they even usually had an 80-90% majority and in 1982 the community of Beerta had a communist mayor (appointed by the Crown, though). However, none of those places qualify as a Communist state or Communist government, because their respective Communist parties do not hold a monopoly on political power.

was all added, but communist party performance is not reall relevant to this article.

Advocates of Communism praise Communist parties for running countries that have sometimes leapt ahead of contemporary "capitalist" countries, offering guaranteed employment, health care and housing to their citizens. Critics of communism typically condemn Communist states by the same criteria, claiming that all lag far behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development and living standards. However, most poor capitalist countries have not managed to escape poverty either, so one may argue there is no statistical indication for a correlation between economic growth and the choice between capitalism and socialism.

Where the bold is pro-communist, italics anti-communist, and bold italics DirkvdM's pro-communist additions. Clearly you can see the communists dominate 2/3 (beginning and end) of the arguement.

However, education is inherently a form of indoctrination and one may just as well argue that compulsory education in Capitalist countries is replete with pro-Capitalist propaganda and lacks Communist views.

Do I even need to say anything here?

Also, there is the risk that a rise in affluence after the partial change to capitalism in China will cause even more pollution (eg, if a billion Chinese would start driving private cars in stead of bicycles).

What kind of "arguement" is this? Is the pro-communist side so bankrupt it has to say that air pollution caused by cars outweighs the benefits of capitalism? This is a joke, frankly.

But the communist ideology arose largely because of the exploitation of workers in the 19th century, which was also likened to slavery.

But we aren't talking about the 19th Century. Regardless of how communism came about, it is a valid criticism to say that the Soviet model was like slavery. It is simply dodging the question to say that communism was founded to end slavery. Hence, irrelevant.

- Note that all of the above is about Communist states, not about Communism.

Unnecessary warning.

If we are going to remove opinions, then we might as well remove the "criticism and advocacy" altogether. If we are going to keep it, we should not be adding these rediculous arguements. CJK 21:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing the entire section would be an exaggeration, but it would make sense to remove some stuff that I reacted to. Like I said, I like to keep both sides,especially when it's about something people might think. But I'm now beginning to feel that's not such a strong argument.

The examples of 'performance' of communist parties (as you called it) is relevant for two reasons. First, like I said, they serve to illustrate the point in the last sentence, that the term 'communist state' requires a monopoly on political power. Secondly, since a communist state is here defined as ruled by a communist party, so the performance of communist parties is relevant. On whichever government level. A nation is not the central concept (that was not the case until a few hundred years ago and is starting to disappear again slowly). Suppose the EU became more of a unity and one state would get a communist government, could that then not be mentioned here? Indian states are large enough to be separate countries. They just happen to be part of a bigger country. The region in the Netherlands is pretty small and the amount of text on it is indeed a bit much. But it all serve fine points, like that a communist mayor can also be appointed by the crown. As an illustration that deserves its place, I'd say. The point is to illustrate how communist parties can gain power, but still not lead to a communist state. Still, this might indeed be shortened.

Your 2/3 argument was just about that paragraph? I though you meant the section as a whole. And anyway, like I said, why should it be evenly balanced? The value of the arguments should matter, whichever way the conclusion seems to turn. And how was my addition pro-communist? Firstly, that should read pro-communist state. A fine but important point that keeps on being missed - which is why I pointed it out (one of your removals).

About the education bit your comment is that you don't have one? Education is inherently indoctrination, I don't think you'd contest that. Anyway, I've already commented on this above.

The cars in China bit does indeed look a bit lame. But it's a reaction (again) to the suggestion that the rule of communist parties is responsible for pollution. Capitalism, however, can just as well lead to pollution. More so even, if you take the US as an extreme example. So once again, an argument is used that works the other way around just as well, and in this case even better. So this is one paragraph that should be completely removed.

The point about slavery is really that the exploitation of workers basically started later in the USSR.

Trey, GDP is indeed 'not everything', as you put it. Actually, it's a pretty vague indicator. See GDP#Controversies for some considerations.

By the way, about the format of this discussion. CJK, indentation is basically meant to distinguish between editors, so if you use indentations in your comment that's a bit confusing. And Trey, it seems better if you add your comments at the bottom in stead of in the middle of someone else's comment. I used to do that too, but contrary to what I thought it makes for harder reading. If yo ureact to something that's a bit back in the thread just make a reference to what you're commenting on. DirkvdM 09:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My problem with both (CJK & DvdM) your approaches is that you both clearly have a strongly held view on the subject. Adding arguments that you make up yourself and trying to agree how much 'balance' there should be is a recipe for revert warring. If it is, for example, a valid criticism comparing the Soviet system to slavery, then you will easily be able to find some reputable economist or historian saying so in print(WP:CITE). If not, it is your original research, and no matter how good a criticism it is, it shouldn't go in here (WP:NOR, WP:NOT a soapbox). The same goes for all the criticism and advocacy which is not cited from a reputable work. It should all go. This article is always likely to be contentious, but it will never stabilise at a decent quality if people try to nudge the POV back and forth between pro- and anti-communist positions. Citing published works is probably the only way to minimise this. --Squiddy 10:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So you suggest removing the entire section and possibly starting anew insofar as sources can be found? Like I said, that's a bit drastic, but you have a point. Then again so much will be written about this that a source can be found for just about anything. Another problem is that verifiable sources will be in English. And most of those will be from the US, which will automatically lead to a bias. Or would you trust others (say, me) to translate texts in another language? Anyway, I can't read Russian or Chinese and I wont be the only one :) . But I suppose that can't be helped. I suppose this is one of those arguments that, even though valid, cannot be accepted. DirkvdM 10:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really want to remove the criticism and advocacy section, because it contains a lot of factual stuff which isn't disputed by anyone, eg severe repression and gulags, good Cuban literacy rate, Soviet dissidents being put in mental hospitals, advanced USSR space program, etc. The problem arises when people use 'critics say' and 'it could be argued' to insert their own arguments about why things may have been justifiable, whether the soviet system resembles slavery, whether capitalism is just as bad, etc. The title of the section does invite people to do this, so perhaps renaming the section to 'achievements and failures of communist states' would help? I think it would be better to stick to hard facts (if we can agree on what they are) as much as possible.

About sources in other languages, there are guidelines here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. --Squiddy 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: The same goes for all the criticism and advocacy which is not cited from a reputable work. It should all go. This article is always likely to be contentious, but it will never stabilise at a decent quality if people try to nudge the POV back and forth between pro- and anti-communist positions. Citing published works is probably the only way to minimise this. Amen Squiddy. I'll go even further than you do in your comments and call the entire article a "recipe for revert warring." I have been meaning to rewrite it for quite some time based on the comparative politics literature on the Soviet Union and the PRC, along with recent Russian and Soviet studies literature; I just never find the time-- as one can see from another one of my languishing projects on Wikipedia User:172/State. 172 02:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Sticking to the facts sounds good in theory, but a problem is that there are two criteria; correctness and relevance/interpretation. Education is indoctrination, so that goes for education in these countries too, but of course stating that is misleading. And it is compulsory, but that goes for other countries as well and is a good thing, but it is presented here as something negative. The first paragraph is a nice example. The same thing is apparently said to support opposing views. Who do you compare? Communist states and industrialised western countries? Sounds reasonable if all countries in question are industrialised. But if you consider that the western ones industrialised much earlier a comparison between communist states at the moment of revolution and other equally poor countries at that moment (who also had a revolution then?) would be more correct and then you see that the capitalist ones have done much worse. And like I said, any comparisons are extremely tentative because there are just too few examples for a statistical basis. So if you start from 'little facts' (or what should I call that?) you can mix them up to create any view you like. So the sources would have to be more 'integral' (I'm struggling to find the right words here), but then you run into the problem of copyright. An article can't be a collection of citations. So there will have to be some interpretation. Not that I wish to put a damper on your enthusiasm, but I thought I should point this out. DirkvdM 09:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So there will have to be some interpretation. Of course. But there's no need for Wikipedia editors to reinvent the wheel here, as there is an established literature in Western political science on just about all the points that you and some of the other editors have been bringing up. For example, your point on comparing between Communist regimes at the moment of revolution and other equally poor countries at that moment has been examined in the development studies scholarship on the notion of "late industrialization." In recent years political scientists, following Arend Lijphart, started to adopt rigorous case study and statistical methods, just as psychologists a bit earlier, in order to mitigate the effect of a researcher picking comparisions in order to get some sort of desired result. Since there is enough research on the subject, by citing the relevant academic literature, we can transcend the "criticism and advocacy" stuff in this article, which, as Squiddy pointed out, has long strayed into the original research realm. 172 09:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me rephrase myself a bit clearer. I meant to point out the difference between data and information. Data are snippets of facts. Information is making links between those snippets to create insight. But when you can combine the data in different ways to create opposing insights there is little difference between information and opinion. As Wikipedia ecitors we are faced with two problems. On the one hand we can't make an article full of quotes (of information/opinion) because that would violate copyright. So we have to interpret and then we're faced with the problem of original research. This is a fine line we have to walk. 'No POV' and 'no OR' sounds good in theory but isn't practical. At least as a strict rule. It's still a good guideline, something to keep in the back of your head. DirkvdM 10:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I probably should have added earlier that the root of all the problems with this entry is the fact that it has been straying way off topic for years. The topic of an article on "Communist state" is much more specialized than many users seem to realize. "Communist state" is a political science term used to refer to a regime in which state and party are embedded in each other. It is a formal state definition, in the same sense that the termconstitutional monarchy is another formal state definition. Sadly, this article was in much better shape (in the sense that the content was appropriate to the title) when it was a stub two and a half years ago. [3] Unfortunately, back in the days of Wikipedia's ancient past, some editors did not understand what kind of content was germane to an article on a formal state definition and started to upload anticommunist commentaries on Soviet and PRC history, similar to the ones now described in their proper place at criticisms of communism. I'm tempted to follow Wikipedia:Be bold and remove the "criticism and advocacy" section at long last, given that the topic of the Communist state article is much more specialized than a general discussion of Communist ideology, Communist regimes, or Communist parties. 172 08:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm persuaded by this argument. I made a started trimming a version of the article User:Squiddy/Communist_state but I realised that just removing the apologetics leaves a pretty poor article. The random juxtaposition of bits about cuba, china, GDR, whatever reads very badly, and it is worst in the criticism and advocacy section.

With the idea of getting back to an article the political science term, the Historical Examples section could be radically cut, and the lists of current and defunct states could be broken out into separate articles. I suspect that any mention of the real historical communist states in a pol sci article will provide seeds from which new clumps of POV and OR will sprout. --Squiddy 10:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point. I agree with the above enthusiastically, along with your 10:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC) post. As you point out, the problem is not just the "criticism and advocacy" section but much of the rest of the article. This article needs a thorough overall just to flesh out the relevant content at hand. A new introduction can be written circumscribing the topic more clearly, and directing readers to the relevant related entries on the histories of individual Communist regimes and criticisms of communism. 172 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Note, by the way, that there is already the Criticisms of communism article, which is linked to at the top of the 'Criticism and advocacy' section. That article also makes the distinction between communism and communist states, resulting in a split in the article. Maybe that should be two separate articles (they're rather different subjects and the article is rather long), with this article linking to the appropriate one. That split would also solve the problem that the title now only covers one half of the subject. DirkvdM 10:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There really isn't a need to split the article "criticisms of communism." When one is criticizing in broad brush "Communist states," or actually Communist regimes to use the more precise technical term, the ideology and political movement called "communism" is clearly the target of the criticism. In other words, the article "criticisms of communism" is supposed to make clear that when it refers to criticisms of Communist regimes, it is referring to authors who have made an argument linking their criticisms of the actions of Communist regimes to the ideology called "communism" itself. If that distinction is not clear at the momemnt in the criticisms of communism article, I suspect that the lack of clarity has to do with the ongoing edit war there. (An edit warrior currently in arbitration keeps on reverting back to his advocacy version. The NPOV editors have given up on trying to reach a compromise with him.) 172 02:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

about communist entities that aren't states

I think it should be included, but should be modified, and maybe trimmed. I can see both your points for including and excluding it. It's a sort of elaborated disambiguation paragraph preventing a possible misconception about communist states and other communist political entities. -- Natalinasmpf 23:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That subject would be off topic here, where the subject deals with Communist states (i.e. Communist Party-run states), not communities. The distinction between communities and states in political science is a huge one. 172 23:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are criticisms duplicated?

Despite the fact that we have a separate Criticisms of communism article, the criticisms section of this article has grown to a considerable length - by duplicating material from the main criticism article. Why is that material duplicated? There should be a summary of criticisms and counter-criticisms of communism in this article. Granted, you might want the summary to give some specific examples, but what we have now is far too long. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

See my conversation with Squiddy above. This article needs a big overhaul along the lines of what Squiddy and I were discussing. 172 22:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Communist party performance in democratic elections

Why is this relevant to the concept of communist states? CJK 22:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is useful as a form of disambiguation - i.e., these do not fall under this definition of communist states and you will not find them discussed further in the article. Warofdreams talk 17:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We already have a section defining it.

And you oppose clarifications... why? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Its already clarified. CJK 17:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It is also useful to counter the common misperception that a Communist Party has never been elected to power. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the article topic? And furthermore, although there have been elections won by communists, how does that annul the fact that the vast majority of times communists are rejected? CJK 23:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Therefore, I think your heated allegations of "vandalism" are unnecessary.

It's not meant to "annul" anything. The article does not claim that communists won most elections they participated in. It only presents the undeniably true fact that they won some elections. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Put that in the Communism article or Communist party. It doesn't belong here. CJK 17:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The common confusion is that the election of a Communist party under a parliamentary system does not make a parlimentary system a Communist state. For example, Moldova often gets included in the Template:Communsim, along with the five remaining Communist states (China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos) by editors who are under that confusion. If one does not believe me, check the page history. It surprises me that the confusion is so common. On that note, I think that someone should restore the text that CJK has been removing. 172 05:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• It would be worth clearing up that confusion, but the para which is being inserted and removed does include too much irrelevant detail (IMO) about bits of India and the Netherlands. How about:

There have been and still exist countries where Communist parties have come to power through democratic elections, and ruled in the context of a multi-party democracy. The East European country of Moldova has been governed since 2001 by an elected Communist party. It does not qualify as a Communist state in the context of this article, because the Communist party exists as one of multiple parties and does not have a monopoly on political power.

--Squiddy 10:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I support Squiddy's paragraph, if it is placed as an example in the definition section. CJK 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Me too. Excellent work by Squiddy once again! 172 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to the end of the def section as CJK suggested. --Squiddy 11:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicaragua

why is nicargua on the map of former and current communist states but not in the chart naming former communist states? - Konulu

It shouldn't be on the map. Reagan-era rhetoric notwithstanding the Sandinistas weren't Communists per se (in fact, the small Nicaraguan Communist Party was in opposition). The FSLN were and are members of the social-democratic Socialist International. The Sandinistas did not expropriate the private sector as a whole and nationalisations were limited. Homey 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

then a removal of the map should be in order - Konulu

I've asked the mapmaker to modify the map. Homey 20:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in definition of Communist State

'A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism'

Isn't this incosistent with the 'schools of communism' box right next to it? I feel it should be changed to:

A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of a Communist School (see right), most commonly Marxism-Leninism.'

This would stop confusions, since the implication is that the other communist schools are not really communists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrae (talk • contribs)

I think you have a point there. Maoism and Juche are derived from Marxism-Leninism, but have different emphases if not contradictions with M-L thought. What do others think? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't the title have an (historical) added, given that it talks about historical Communist states. In theory it's possible to have a two-party communist state, it's just never been tried. --211.28.123.16 12:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the term

Have I clarified why there is such a big dispute over usage of the term "Communist" to describe states such as USSR, China, Cuba, etc?

It seemed to me that commies (I mean this affectionately) make a big deal over the concept of socialism. "This is a socialist country, and soon it will be communist!"

In my experience with anti-communists (should I say "red-baiters"?), they always call Stalin and Mao "Communists" and they governments they ran "Communist". They oppose "Communism" (meaning the totalitarian system which Communist leaders used to rule 1/3 the world's population) because these "Communist" countries never seem to advance to Marx's next theoretical stage of "communism" (small c).

So we have supporters using one definition and opponents using another. How can we contributors work together to write an article, when the thing being described can't even be named without arousing an intense dispute? Shall we sprinkle phrases like the following?

• what Marxists call "socialism"
• what Marxists call "communism"
• what anti-Communists call "Communism"

Is there at least an agreement on what "socialism" is? :-) --Uncle Ed 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Guyana and Burma

why are these states not in list?? during the '70 and part of '80 they were ruled by a single (socialist) party

Guyana is a little more complex than most of those on this list, but Burma is a pretty clear-cut example - why not add it to the list? Warofdreams talk 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Burma cannot be added. The definition cannot be reduced to totalitarianism with socialist rhetoric. In Burma there was no communist party leading the state, it was a military junta that constructed an artificial party for propaganda purposes. --Soman 08:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note in the article about this, but it's difficult to produce a definition of a communist state which includes the nations listed and not Burma - how do we decide if the party has real power? Warofdreams talk 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Politics is not always very exact. However, I think Somalia illustrates the point quite well. The regime of Siad Barre was adviced by their Soviet donors to construct a political party, in a step towards institutionalization. However, it was never a marxist-leninist party per se, it just imitated some structural features and rhetoric of the communist parties. One could well argue that the communist parties of Eastern Europe had little real manouvering space for carrying politics independently from the USSR, but at least they were real functioning m-l parties before the communist takeover. --Soman 09:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Totalitarian?

Intangible, I ask that you stop stamping your personal opinions on articles and abide by Wikipedia's policy of No original research. Unless you possess reputable, non-partisan sources that state "all Communist states are totalitarian", your edit has no place in Wikipedia. Your edit is also ignorant of the level of freedom enjoyed by the urban middle class of the People's Republic of China, one of the purported Communist states. While all so-called Communist states to date have been authoritarian, that need not necessarily be so. -- WGee 02:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not require a non-partisan source. Just verifiable publication in a reliable source. Fred Bauder 03:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China is an authoritarian state. It is not a Communist state. Neither is Hungary. A quick source tells me [4] "All communist countries are cursed with the legacy of totalitarianism, which aggressively sought to eradicate anything that might serve as an institutional foundation for democracy, including civil society and the rule of law." Intangible 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"In the postcommunist countries, the totalitarian past is surely dead" from your source, is referring to extreme suppression which involved entire populations. To refer to the People's Republic of China as merely "authoritarian" is inappropriate. The Roman Catholic Church is authoritarian. They don't execute or imprison those who engage in democratic actions. Red China does. Fred Bauder 11:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

A good example of the state of flux in China Fred Bauder 12:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You can also say that China's one-child policy is due to other countries not letting Chinese immigrants in. Further, I believe that couples that are "one-child children" do not themselves fall under the one-child policy, but this might vary per region. Intangible 17:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots of issues, but the point is that in many instances totalitarian practices are contested by attempts to conduct business in a lawful way. Fred Bauder 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on making a broad, definitive, factual statement that all communist states are totalitarian, you need a non-partisan, reputable source.

The Encyclopædia Britannica states that totalitarianism is a "Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority." [5] Certainly then, the government of the People's Republic of China cannot be considered totalitarian, as it does not subordinate all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state (as evidenced by the economic freedom enjoyed by the middle class), nor does it (anymore) have a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority. Rather, there exists a clique of powerful bureaucrats, none with a particularly charismatic reputation.

And while you say that the PRC is not a Communist state (which is true in practice), the original definition of the article, which is derived from the listed references, refutes that claim, as does the main body of the article, which specifically names the PRC as a Communist state. The PRC is governed by a Communist Party which officially declares allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism; it is therefore a communist state. If you have references that dispute this definition, you must still respect the findings of the references already used in the article, which are just as valid.

Moreover, you said, Fred, that "To refer to the People's Republic of China as merely "authoritarian" is inappropriate." While I agree that the term "authoritarian", on its own, does not fully describe the extent of the CPC's rule, the term "totalitarian" is evidently too extreme to apply to the present-day PRC (or even to Laos or Cuba). By stating that "a Communist Party holds a monopoly on power", the lead appropriately describes the extent of authoritarianism in Communist states.\

--WGee 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well might I note, that of the current countries with a single communist party, only those that nave not embraced market reforms are still totalitarian (using the Encyclopædia Britannica definition). Ie. North Korea and Turkmenistan vs. China and Vietnam. This nuance should be mentioned I think in the introduction. Intangible 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Most Communist states historically were, or continue to be, totalitarian with a rigid plan economy; embracing market reforms isn't necessarily coupled with as much socio-political liberalisation, they may remain authoritarian. The clauses after the semicolon don't make sense and are improperly connected. They also need to be sourced. Secondly, your edit moved a whole paragraph of relevant and lead-worthy information about the differences between socialism and communism. -- WGee 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should check the edit history of this article for once??? Intangible 20:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

HK&Macau

In a bit sceptical about the wordings on HK & Macau. IMHO, hybrid economies are frequent in present 'communist states' (even North Korea has announced plans for a 'special economic zone'). Just because the political set-up is different in HK&Macau than the rest of PRC, does not change the political fundamental characteristics of PRC. --Soman 13:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"market reforms"

It should be pointed out that the mixed socialist/capitalist economies under Communist leadership have had economic reforms but not had "market-reforms", they've opened to foreign direct capital investment, which is a completely different thing; they changed the economy from purely collectively owned to mixed with some private ownership, they did not create a capitalist market economy as China, Vietnam etc. still practice strict central planning. This is for instance, why the issue with the Yuan/US-Dollar is problematic to the Americans. NoJoyInMudville 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)