Talk:Communist state/archive 7

In what world?

We would not accept an article on Catholicism based on a theory of heaven; why is its political equavalent being advanced in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia: "As communism entails the abolition of the state, a communist state is a logical impossibility." This article is about regimes ruled by Communist Parties, not about utopian fantasies. Fred Bauder 15:48, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid you are mistaken. Heaven is an idea, and therefore represented in wikipedia. This article is about regimes ruled by "so-called" communist states yes, but due to the ETMYLOGY of the word, it is hardly a utopian fantasy, much less direct democracy being one. It is a logical impossibility - it is an oxymoronic statement. The term "communist state" only persists because it was coined during the 20th century (just like the word "gay" for being homosexual was) for totalitarian planned economies. In truth, being gay has no relevance to being homosexual, (well not until some people in the 1960's hijacked the word), and neither has communism to totalitarian governments. Communism = ideology of communes, communes do not exist in totalitarian states. -- Natalinasmpf 18:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Article is not a NPOV

Especially in the lead section:"A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism. The term Communist state originated from the fact that most of the states in question were or are run by parties that called themselves "Communist Party of [country]." Thus, they became known as Communist Party-run states, or simply Communist states. However most of these states called themselves socialist, since in Marxist political theory, socialism is the intermediate stage in reaching communism, which is a condition with no state, so that communist state is considered an oxymoron."

Is not said,where the term is used and by whom, where originated from, etc. This makes it look like "we, who call them communist states, are right" and "they, who call themselves socialist states (even considering a communist state an oxymoron term) are not right". So, it's one POV which by far prevails another. And therefore the article seems not to fit NPOV criteria. Cmapm 01:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is obviously not NPOV. Look at the list of websites. (I will be adding official websites for the countries listed.) It needs to be totally cleaned up. --harrismw 02:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, another POV article that needs a MAJOR cleanup would be Communism. I consider it one of the most POV articles I've come across on wikipedia. BTW, nobody yet explained to me what the real difference between socialism and communism is. Wanna try your luck? Luis rib 18:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are two - three definitions of socialism. There is broad socialism, that is all ideologies that are basically anti-capitalist and equalitarian. There is socialism meaning a (broad) socialist state (narrow socialism) and there is Marxist socialism which generally means the second. Thus all "communist states" are really socialist (!) (narrow). Communism similarly has three meanings, a socialist (broad) society with decisions made at a community level, characterised by minimal hierarchy, the end result of Marxist theory (not really fully explained) (both these first two do not have a nation/state) and what are commonly called communist states. --harrismw 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have always found this article an attempt to hide critique that should be in the Communism article. Any attempt to make historical critique of Communism even weaker will result in moving back the historical examples in more detail to Communism. Ultramarine 19:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, I have to disagree with these "definitions" of various socialisms. There is only one socialism, often referred in the West as Marxist socialism. Of the three above-mentioned, the other two are the streams, or alternative views on what the socialism should or could also be. That does not make them correct, as the Marxist socialism is a valid category within social and economic science, whereas the other two are just pseudo-romantic fantasies.

It is however correct to say that the "communist" countries are actually socialist countries. As some have argued elsewhere, there's never have been a "communist" state around. I'd add: not so much because the term "communist state" is a contradiction in itself. More simply because the communism is a phase in social and econmomical development of a society that has reached this higher level through socialist phase of its progress.

Or, in a few words, once a socialist society (as opposed to a state) reaches the peak in its development, it does away with the "state, and it enters into communism. However, to get there, the whole society would have to reach the critical mass of people thinking along the same general lines and accept the same common values in order to make such transition successful. (User - Komunist)

Additions needed.

There needs to be infomation about Chile.

There needs to be more infomation that is less biased. "As noted in the introduction, a "Communist state" is a state where a Communist Party holds power within the context of a single-party system of government. Thus, a country ruled by a Communist Party (or some other communist group) is not automatically a "Communist state"." And bias needs to be removed.

It needs to be pointed out that the various countries have vastly differing economies and systems of government. (Compare China to Cuba.)

Just needs to be cleaned up. --harrismw 08:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Communist Party of Chile was not the ruling party in Chile. They were a junior coalition partner, I believe (the Communist Party was also a junior partner in the first Mitterand government, btw). Allende was not a Communist Party member. AndyL 10:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

Is there still an NPOV dispute here? If I don't hear anything within 24 hours I'm removing the tag. AndyL 9 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

Actually i think there is extraordinary bias throuought the article

The fact that these states are truely "one party" is in dispute (some like the DPRK and China are in fact multi-party, some like Cuba have no legal role for the Communist Party and candidates run without party nomination)

The fact that these states are "totaliatarian" and "authoritarian" is obviously in dispute and naturally none of them would characterize themselves as suchNoJoyInMudville 17:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine

i haven't made any large-scale deletion other than the last two paras i thought had already been discussed earlier. if you could explain what "large-scale deletions" it is you're objecting to i'd appreciate it. J. Parker Stone 03:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The deleted paragraphs were bad enough bad you have made numerous POV changes in every paragraph, like excluding that the Soviet Union become a net importer of cereals. Ultramarine 04:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, every country is a net importer of something. There is a great deal of room for legitimate disagreement on all of the removals to which you are objecting. This article is not a place to bring up every problem in every single party state ruled by a Communist Party. 172 06:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

the problem with the criticism section is that there's too much "critics say this, advocates say that" that can be cut down on. there are certain things that have happened in Communist states (improvements in education/healthcare as well as political repression and economic problems) that we can state as facts and then add certain people's interpretation of those facts -- we don't need to say "critics point out" every single sentence. J. Parker Stone 06:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I'm wondering if someone has slipped me some psychedelic substances tonight, but I am in complete agreement with Trey Stone here. The "critics say this, advocates say that" has been annoying stylistic feature of this article since its troubled inception more than two years ago... Ultramarine, the bulk of Trey Stone's changes were not POV-related one way or another. Most consisted of improvements in the writing. I am going to revert back to Trey Stone's version for now pending further discussion. 172 06:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This is of course exactly the place to point out the failings of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years. No censorship or revisionism. Ultramarine 13:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

ultramarine, my edits are not POV-related -- in fact they did not change the previous version at all, aside from "they were a net importer of cereal" and the last two paras (how many times do we need to be reminded that Trotskyists don't think historical Communism is "real" communism?) what i am trying to do is streamline this article, particularly the criticisms section, which is extremely bloated. we can include all the important critiques of communism in there without making it long-winded. J. Parker Stone 22:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As anyone can see [1], you made numerous POV changes. Another deletion was this argument "Critics argue that past evils in an old regime cannot be used to justify new ones; otherwise supporters of Hitler could justify his deeds by pointing to past human rights crimes by the German Empire in Africa." Or changing somewhat disputed to disputed for the numbers killed. Ultramarine 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

i changed a rather obscure argument into a more common one (ie, that Stalinist, Maoist, etc. suffering was more widespread than any previous regime.) as for "somewhat disputed," that was related to the length of the article and the wordiness of several sentences, though i suppose we could add it back in. but i reiterate that i am quite an anti-Communist and as such have no motives for POV changes to enhance Communist states' images. J. Parker Stone 22:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Then do not remove the critics arguments. Ultramarine 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

...dude, forget it, i'm done here for now. hopefully more people can join this discussion. J. Parker Stone 00:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, Trey Stone's edits had nothing to do with POV. For the most part he was just improving the English. Our English is hardly fluent, and you probably had little idea how horrible some of the writing sounded until he came along and cleaned it up. BTW, accusing editors of "censorship and revisionism" are clear personal attacks, which will land you in arbitration in little time if you keep it up. 172 19:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

He deleted numerous arguments. Ultramarine 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No, he cleaned up the writing with a number of factual statements stated as arguments that should not have been. As native English speakers, please give us the benefit of the doubt and point out on the talk page the relevant "arguments" he removed. 172 22:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Have already pointed them out here. Do not again make a large scale deletion of arguments and facts you do not like. If you do not like the English, correct it, do not censor. Ultramarine 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You have not pointed anything, and Trey Stone's edits were a copyediting. Also, do not accuse editors of censorship, a personal attack that will get you sent to arbitration. 172 00:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

As anyone can see above, I have pointed out several deletions of arguments. Ultramarine 00:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, you have just made accusations against other editors. 172 00:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Here is a comparision between edits: [2] Ultramarine 01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the differences between the two versions. Note Trey Stone's original explanation. 172 01:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Explanations? I see no explanation for example for removing the last two paragraphs. And why are you removing new arguments? And why is the end of the article incomprehensible with numerous spelling errors in your version? [3] Ultramarine 01:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

See Trey Stone's original explanation: ::the problem with the criticism section is that there's too much "critics say this, advocates say that" that can be cut down on. there are certain things that have happened in Communist states (improvements in education/healthcare as well as political repression and economic problems) that we can state as facts and then add certain people's interpretation of those facts -- we don't need to say "critics point out" every single sentence. J. Parker Stone 06:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 172 01:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are you not answering my questions? Why are you insisting on a version with numerous spelling errors? And Trey Stone argument may be used for removing "critics say", not for large scale deletion of the arguments of the critics. Ultramarine 01:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Those "arguments" were unsourced gibberish. 172 01:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There are numerous references. Are you denying that the criticized historical events took place? Why are you doing large scale deletion of critical arguments and insisting on a poorly spelled article? Ultramarine 01:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

What events? This article is incoherent mess by and large. Trey Stone's copyedit helps, but it needs a thorough rewrite, and I am working on it. 172 01:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction in terms

Do we need the current edit with the Che comment? It's not encyclopedic and in any case the way "Communist state" is used in this article is not a "contradiction." Also the flowery language like "perfect harmony" when whether Marx's method can ever actually lead there has always been hotly contested. J. Parker Stone 05:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article really needs a rewrite. Frankly I think just restoring the very first version of this article by Jtdirl would be an improvement. 172 | Talk 07:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I put that there as a continuation of what was already there. It said that the Communist parties in those countries call their policy socialist, but it didn't say why. And I did. It was meant to represent the ideological state, hence the flowery language. Communism is a bit like '60 communes or kibbutzes on a larger scale, where there is no government. This is essential to the ideology and in contradiction with the concept of a state. And if an article is on a term that is in contradiction with itself (at least for those who adhere to the ideology it refers to) then surely that needs to be pointed out. Workers of the world unite, no more borders and all that. It hasn't turned out that way in reality, but the reason for that is that man isn't ready for it (or so the ideology goes). And I thought a reference to this 'new man' could do with a mention of Che Geuvarra. Though I'd rather have had a link to an article on that, but the present new man article is about something completely different. But then mentioning one of the leading communist thinkers from one of the remaining Communist States isn't too strange. I've put it back with a slight modification. DirkvdM 12:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that no one is using the term "communist state." The article is using the term "Communist state," and all that means is a state governed solely by the Communist Party, nothing more. J. Parker Stone 20:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, there's that capitalisation again. I can't wrap my head around that. I've understood that rules are (or used to be) very relaxed, but that one use of capitals is for proper nouns. But that doesn't apply here, does it? Do you mean to say that the word communist (no capital) in 'communist State' is an adjective? But that's more like Dutch, where one writes 'Dutch', with a capital, when referring to the language, but without a capital in 'the dutch language'. But that's not the case in the English (!) language, so you couldn't mean that, right?. What then? DirkvdM 09:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

What a mean is that a Communist state ("state" isn't capitalized) refers to a Communist Party-run state, the latter phrase just says it with more words. You're right that there's never been an nice, peachy-keen "communist state" where everyone's equal and happy and blah, but that's not the point of this article. And in any case the many rationalizations of the Trotskyites, post-Cold War communists, and other radical-left offshoots about why the Soviet system wasn't "true" communism is mentioned in more than enough detail, we don't need Mr. Che weighing in in the intro. J. Parker Stone 09:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understood what you meant by 'Communist state', but you compared it with 'communist state' and I still don't get what you mean by that nor what the only difference in writing (the capitalisation) stands for. I notice now that something similar to what I wrote is in the third paragraph. But there the term 'socialism' is used, when it really should be 'communism'. I've merged the two and dropped the 'New Man' bit (whilst grinding my teeth) and also the link to collectivism because the inserted communism link covers that (and anyway, the definition of collectivism also applies to fascism, I'd say). There's a more logical flow to the story now, I think. DirkvdM 15:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

DirkvdM, the rules are not relaxed for capitalization, as organized political parties are always proper nouns. This is an article on states run by Communist Parties, like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of China, the Communist Party of Korea, the Communist Party of Cuba, et al., so this article is on "Communism" in the sense of the large "c." 172 | Talk 16:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course, 'Communist Party' is a proper noun, but 'Communist state' isn't, so that doesn't explain the captalisation. The 'relaxed' bit I read elsewhere, but the same guy told me that a proper noun can be recognised by the lack of an article, but here one can have a of the Communist Party and it can be plural too. I really have to make this a little study of this because the logic still eludes me (note that I'm Dutch). By the way, what do you think of my edit? Looks better now, yes? DirkvdM 16:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate you removing the "New Man" Che thing I still think the previous version was much more concise. We are not getting into what a "true communist society" is in the intro, we are talking about states ruled by the Communist Party, as specified at the top, so this is unnecessary. As for the other edits, they are adding tangential material to what was already explained. J. Parker Stone 03:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Considering the misconceptions people have about communism (namely that it is what Communist states stand for) it seems necessary to give some explanation in the intro. I agree, though, that that should not take over the intro. However, I have added information whilst actually reducing the amount of text slightly (well, I deleted some too). So it is now actually more concise. And a 'layman' (someone who hasn't a clue about communism - an important potential reader) will understand this more easily, I think. Still, maybe the (now) third paragraph could be moved to the next section. Or maybe even the second paragraph. The remaining sentence could then be combined with the first sentence of the second section plus a slight referral to ideological communism, something like this:

A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which follows the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, a country ruled by a Communist party is not automatically a "Communist state" (it may have been elected democratically). The term refers to absolute, unconditional power by one party. Also, it refers to historical states, so states that exist or have existed. These have little to do with ideological Communism, which is a Utopia in which no state exists, so in this sense the term 'Communist state' is a contradiction in terms. Communist states usually call themselves Socialist states (as in the 'Union of Socialist Soviet Republics').

By 'tangential information' I suppose you mean 'along the same lines'. Any examples? DirkvdM 09:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

a Communist state is a state governed solely by the Communist Party, we do not need to get into "communist state" (which isn't even used as a term anyway) per Marxist theory because that is not what this article is for. i'd really appreciate it if the intro was reverted back to the much more concise version without the convoluted wording about "utopian phase" and how "Communist state" is a "contradiction" when it isn't. J. Parker Stone 03:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The word 'regime' isn't neutral

It is customary to refer to certain governments as 'regimes'. Wiktionary says this term is often used as a prejorative. And thus has no place in a dictionary (which must remain neutral). Literally, it's neutral, but in practise that's not the case. Ever heard of a democratic regime? Or the regime of Chirac? An alternative would be 'government', but here 'state' usually makes more sense (that is after all the title of the article). In other cases 'rule' makes more sense, as in 'the regime of Stalin', but a problem here is that 'rule' in this sense has no plural (I believe). And 'administration' is typical for the US. Does anyone know of a better alternative? DirkvdM 15:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Regime is neutral; Wiktionary is wrong. Look up the specific and value-neutral meaning of the term in a political science textbook or a sourcebook on politics like the Oxford Dictionary. If you don't have access to these tools, I'll elaborate. 172 | Talk 16:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not just Wiktionary, Wikipedia also says something along these lines (there is a discussion on this there). And two of my dictionaries (Dutch-Dutch and English-Dutch) don't specifically say it, but the examples they use are largely negative, like 'totalitarian regime' and 'fascist regime'. The literal meaning may differ, but what matters is what people read in it. Or let me put it this way. Wikipedia should be consistent, right? So if the word regime is used here, it should be used elsewhere too. How would you feel about reading about a 'democratic regime'? That would look strange, wouldn't it? So once again my question: Is there a really neutral alternative for 'regime' in, say, 'the regimes of Nixon and Kennedy'. DirkvdM 09:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"contradiction in terms

The following POV (vulgar and erroneous) removed:

But that name refers to Communism, meaning the ultimate goal of the party to one day reach a utopian phase in which everyone is equal by their own volition. In such a 'state' no form of government is needed, so in this sense the term Communist state is a contradiction in terms.

The first half is a very primitive definition of communism. The second half is false and irrelevant, since our definition is without contradiction, and word games don't matter. Language knows much more strange alive and well "contradictions of terms". mikka (t) 15:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There have been edit wars over this. I put it backin a milder form, saying not that it is a contradiction, but that in a certain sense it is a contradiction. Also, I kept it short, resulting in a primitive definition. Of Communism, mind you, not Marxism. DirkvdM 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware of edit wars over this. They have eventually led to a reasonable tradeoff. Brevity is not a justification of incorrectness. "In certain sense" is a weasel word and has no place in the intro. I you wish, you may dwell upon the "contradiction in terms" in the relevant section, "definition of the communist state." mikka (t) 00:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please also keep in mind that the intro part must contain only most funtamental text that defines the article topic. Things like "contradiction in terms" are good for the game of trivia, but don't contribute something important to the defition of the term. mikka (t) 01:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

100% communist votes

Removed as irrelevant and speculation:

For example, the region of Reiderland in the Netherlands received the nickname Little Moscow because the Dutch Communist Party (CPN) did have a majority from World War II to 1989 (when the party merged with other parties into GroenLinks). The community of Finsterwolde even usually had an 80-90% majority and in 1982 the community of Beerta had a communist mayor (appointed by the Crown, though). But these don't qualify as Communist states either, even if the Communist Party had received 100% of the votes, because in a democracy there is always the possibility that that does not happen and in a Communist state the Communist Party reserves absolute rule by default.

The first part is irrelevant, since it does not speak about a state. The second part is false, since it is a guesswork. In practice it was always so that if an inherently non-democratic seizes power by democratic means, the democracy is immediately kicked out. The best known example is Nazi Germany, the recent one is Belarus. And many former "communist states" were "democratically elected as well". mikka (t) 15:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

True, it's not about a state. That should have been stated. It's a really small region, but some of the other examples that were given are also about regions, not states. The point of including this was twofold. One is to give an example of a place where a Communist Party had a vast majority for a very long time in a democracy (more so than in the other examples). Surely this is of interrest to someone who is reading about this subject. More detail could then be given in the Reiderland article. The other is to illustrate that (if it were a state) this still does not constitute a Communist State. " ... the Communist Party reserves absolute rule by default." Surely, that last sentence is very relevant. There are three stages in the reasoning: 1) getting seats in government 2) getting into the coalition 3) having a majority, ruling out the necessity of a coalition. That last bit was missing. Even if it had never happened anywhere, the possibility would still merit mentioning. The fact that it actually happened (and to no small extent) only 'spices it up'. I've put it back in a slightly rewritten form. What do you call guesswork? DirkvdM 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

the part that starts with "if". there is no "ifs" in history. This is an encyclopedic article, not an essay or political fantasy novel. Not to say that you guess is not supported by history, as I explained. mikka (t) 00:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

peasants

Rm false overgeneralization and restored original text:

Marx predicted that the revolution would come from the oppressed laborers fighting capitalism, but in reality it was usually peasants (especially in China) led by intellectuals. The intellectuals may have followed Marx's ideology, but, for example, in Russia the population was simply revolting against the poverty brought about by the Tsars, as they had already been doing for decades.

"usually peasants" is false. It was not "especially in china", but "only in china and some other states".

"Simply revolting" is a prerequisite of any successful revolution, as opposed to a "palace coup", so the word "simply" is silly. mikka (t) 15:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The 'simply' reflects the fact that they largely weren't following any Communist ideology, but 'simply' revolting against poverty, which they had been doing for decades already. Actually, the successful revolution had already taken place, and then the Communists took over. So at first it really wasn't a Communist revolution. Maybe that should be made clear too.

Repeat again: "usually peasants" is a false statement. The "peasant" part is the major contribution of Maoism to communist ideology. mikka (t) 00:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way, most of your deletions were of edits by me. It's not something personal is it? :)

They simply happen to be the most recent ones. mikka (t) 00:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Another one is that you deleted "(effectively no ownership)" after "collective ownership". Collective ownership really means 'no ownership', right? What's the difference? Well, a difference is that the first is a reasoning from the capitalist past and the second ignores the past and just looks at the possible society one could have. Sort of causal versus teleological. I suppose. If you get what I mean.

"No ownership" is not the same as "collective ownership" by any legal definition. The "effectively" is your interpretation here, as well as one of the roots of problems in former communist states, but this is a long story. mikka (t) 00:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and don't take this the wrong way, but your command of the English language seems to hamper your assessment of certain texts (not that my English is perfect...). And your edit into 'the worker people's will' sounds very odd. DirkvdM 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is because you probably don't know well the topic you are writing on, combined with my bad command of English. I meant "working people's will", if you know what I mean. Also, your reverting without addressing criticism is inadmissible. mikka (t) 00:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Trotskyist criticisms

i'm thinking we should cut these out of the intro and just include them in the criticisms section. J. Parker Stone 01:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable, to a degree, but the fact of the criticism must be mentioned in the intro as well. mikka (t) 01:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with mikka, it should be mentioned in the inro. It is important for people to understand that very few of those who calls themselves communists supports any kind of communist state. Anarchist communists, left communists, council communists, operaists, autonomous marxists, situationists, trotskyists, et cetera are all opposed to the communist states. Only the marxist-leninists (who have always taken an anti-communist position in every class struggle) supports and defends these kinds of states (ant not even all of them). We fought the marxist-leninists in Spain, in Hungary, in Italy, in France and all over the world...we do not want to be associated with them or their horrible states.

pharmaceutical industry in Cuba?

Under 'Criticism and advocacy' the pharmaceutical industry in Cuba is mentioned. Cuba is known for its good healthcare, but a lack of medicines. So 'pharmaceutical industry' doesn't seem like the right word. 'Pharmacology' may apply, but not 'industry', it seems to me. DirkvdM 19:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

I don't think that the edits were polemic or POV. Would you please expand on your reasons before you revert? --Ebralph 19:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have time for anything approaching a lengthy fulmination at the moment and it is not required to edit material. I will discuss it later but it might even be a couple days. --TJive 23:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry - no explaination, no revert. You a right - you do not need an explaination to edit the material. You need it to avoid what is exactly happening. --Ebralph 00:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

no explaination, [sic] no revert

Or what, you will revert me in turn? What does that imply, exactly? That we have equal abilities and privileges as Wikipedia editors. There is no more neutral presumption of the correctness of inserting the material any more than deleting it, and you'd think on already contentious issues like this there would be a high level of scrutiny to new, significant additions, especially parts that read like crude ideological ranting.

I think "what is exactly happening" (if more than a cryptic reference to a revert war) is that you are presently behaving a bit too much like a lord; whether I can or do revert is not your decision. --TJive 02:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

You don't need to explain an edit that is an addition, unless it is disputed. Deleting information and reverting does require an explanation. I have mostly added info - I generally prefer to leave what is already there alone.And about the intro. That the term is controversial is proven by the ongoing controversy here, I'd say. And I have weakened the oxymoron thing by stating that 'it is claimed that...'. Which makes it true. And it is relevant.

I'd like to note that you reverted everything I did, including linguistic errors I corrected. DirkvdM 08:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

TJive, it is very easy: I'm not willing to wait until you deign to explain your actions. Now, to stop this back and forth and to clarify what I wanted to say. I feel that your explaination for reverting is insufficient. I can't understand why you should see the changes as POV. As far as I could see, the changes were even-handed. Sometimes Communism got a jab, sometimes Capitalism. I asked you to go into detail about your reverts because I can't see what you are seeing. Why don't you expand on what you've said so far and maybe I can understand what motivates you. As long as you can't, I don't see a reason to accept your reverts. And that was the point I was trying to make. I really would like to make a constructive dialog out of this, even though I've been just as short as you have been. --Ebralph 09:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

One little big point: that some of the edits were one way and others the other way is irrelevant. If they're all either right- or leftwing or whatever that's ok, as long as they're arguably correct. DirkvdM 09:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

True. I didn't say as much because it seemed self-evident. The major Point is that TJive reverted on the basis that it was POV. --Ebralph 18:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. DirkvdM 07:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The article itself is not in too great of a shape; however I don't have the time to go through and remove the juvenile digressing (or resorting) to constant and constantly unnamed "critics say" and so forth. I am actually pretty busy but I believe I mentioned I could give some sort of comment today; there are some big problems with the attempted additions:

1. a controversial term-Nearly always (and in this case most particularly) an attempt to negatively qualify the significance or reliability of a topic or even the article that follows it. That there is ideological disagreement about the value of a term or its subject does not mean it should be introduced as being primarily a subject of "controversy". It looks poor and would be so in the case of "social justice is a controversial term for...." or "capitalism is a controversial economic system" and so on and on.
2. From this we have moved from exacerbating the merit of "controversy" to speaking on its behalf, e.g. "The rest of the article will, however, use the aforementioned definition that" which basically gives the impression, "it is not right, but this is what the article will say". If there is a significant and fundamental disagreement over the applicability of the term for the purpose of the article then the proposal should be made to alter it in this manner rather than attempting to water down the effect of what is stated (later also at, Note that all of the above is about Communist states, not about Communism.).
3. There is an attempt to utilize the article for ideological tit-for-tat even though it doesn't directly concern the topic. If a criticism is that, "communist states have caused X", then "other states have done something similar to X" is nothing but a logical fallacy and it is only based on the qualifications and arguments of Wikipedia editors. The phrase, "most poor capitalist countries" allows for an imprecision essential to not directly answering the challenge of causation (what is asserted of communism) and merely deflects the question. To "[c]ritics charge that Communist compulsory education was replete with pro-Communist propaganda and censored opposing views" we thus have the addition of, "something similar could be said of education anytime anywhere, including present capitalist countries". Could it? What countries are we referring to and how are they "capitalist"? Who argues this? Since what is posited is that it "could" be argued then what is the relevance of the statement, the musing of a particular editor?

Specific to the education issue: what is considered propaganda or not is a matter of POV in itself. It might be a better idea to drop that sentence altogether. For example: in Germany you generally have about at least 2 or 3 times a course on modern history which focuses on the evils of the 3rd Reich. Now people who actually did the deed of course didn't see what they did as evil. From their POV it is Propaganda against them. Even someone who agrees with the basic must feel that the amount of space given is Propaganda. To take a less conrtoversial example: the way the US is organized today was far less clear to the people actually founding it. (e.g. parties - most founding farthers disliked them) Still, it is tought in a fashion that one could understand as propaganda. The problem here is far more basic: any teaching can be coined as propaganda, depending on who is talking about it. Especially with children, the idea is to teach the values of the society. As such it probably will always be propaganda.

Of which the outcome of such a debate is not up to us to decide and which has no bearing on the fact that it is not conducive to this particular article. --TJive 19:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

1. These arguments and potential arguments (not factual statements, but conditional and tepid assertions) are never attributed but instead come from the omniscient narrative. This is, however, at least partly due to the belated industrialisation in the Soviet Union. 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).
2. But the communist ideology arose largely because of the exploitation of workers in the 19th century, which was also likened to slavery. Who says that is why communism arose? Who is defining "exploitation" and qualifying its existence at any point in time? Who likened it to slavery? What does that have to do with the subject? The topic is about communist states, which we are otherwise being told have nothing to do with the "theory" of communism, something wholly different.

I agree that the discussion about communism itself is a bit off topic and a bit sloppy in its way, but not wrong per se. Without detailing too much a good first stab it wouldn't be too wrong, don't you think?

It is bad form to argue that "communist state" has nothing to do with "communism" per se and then argue that the things "alleged" about communist states can be deflected by a look into the rationale of communism itself; moreover, it is hardly encyclopedic in either intent or prose. --TJive 19:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

1. And although the birth control program in China may have averted a demographic disaster, it was also a violation of human rights. Who says it averted a disaster and how, here, do we know the causes of a speculative event?

Well, I doubt seriously that the Chinese would have taken the measures they had, if they didn't see a disaster looming. Of course sourceing it would have been a better approach.

1. Eventually it seems that Dirk comes to the realization that rather than editing he is presenting polemical arguments; Also, one 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 still done it would not be an excuse for others to do something similar. Has nothing to do with the topic but attempts to qualify events that are recounted of the subject, "but even if that were still still done"; this, again, is poor even as any attempt at an argument, it sounds bad, and it has no place here. --TJive 00:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain why you see certain edits as POV. They make it far easier to judge your arguments. I feel that most of your arguments tend to do with the sourceing then with anything else. POV might have been a poor choice of word though and misleading. Your bigger bone is with the quality of the edit. It might have been more constructive to suggest how to improve on what is inserted instead of just removing it with a POV comment. --Ebralph 01:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting analysis from TJive and well stated. What is noticible in this article on first sight, is the left-over Cold War mythology that Capitalism & Communism are competing ideologies (this idea of capitalism as an ideology will continue for some time, unfortunately). While Communism can be aptly described as flawed ideology, and 150 years of historical experience gives us license to render such a judgement, one flaw of Communist ideology was labeling Capitalism as an ideology, when in fact it is not.

Simple economic iron laws of nature state---> You cannot consume more than you produce. There must be a (call it what you will) surplus, savings, profit, produce in excess of consumption, whatever name you wish to assign. In other words, no economic system exists that does not produce a profit. History has demonstrated, no economic system exists that does not use a profit motive. This is simply more evidence of the fraduelent basis of Communist ideology, (a) that "captialism" is a competeing ideology, and (b) that Communism is somehow above the dirty low base motivation of self greed and profit, etc. As TJive has pointed out, the "attempt to utilize the article for ideological tit-for-tat" needs to be addressed. Ultitmately the hard cold facts of human experience are going to stomp the bejeezus out of ideological daydreams. nobs 01:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalism is not an ideology per se, because it wasn't written as closed concept compared to communism. The basis of our societies today are things like "Wealth of Nations", etc. and as such are ideologicly tinged. Just because the ideology grew more organic and wasn't a closed system from the beginning doesn't make it less ideologic. Where you are right is the fact the no one ever wrote a manifest collecting the thoughts to one comprehensive system. I also don't think that 150 years give us license to render judgement about a political system. Compared to human existence - or even just Chrisian era, that is really little time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

In light of the democides done by Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Godless/Leninist/Stalinist/Hitlerite (yes, Hitler was a Godless Socialist too) /Maoist (I don't care what name you wanna give it, and I don't give a shit about the differences), 150 years is indeed plenty of time. And we are morally obligated to make a judgement. nobs 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Communism does not try to produce something out of thin air. The problem you aptly state is the fact that selfishness is an important part of any working system. Communism requires an almost angel like thought for your fellow man - something that doesn't happen from today to tomorrow. I personaly find two things far more problematic about the ideology:

• It's prediction of history; anyone wanting to predict the future of human development renders himself unbelievable. It leads to people trying to fit everything in its preconceptions - even if it has to use force. Religions haven't performed better on that score.
• It didn't grow organicly (like other systems have) and as such disrupted the corresponding societies. Any time a society was confronted with a radicly different system of government, those societies have broken down. Trying to change a system so fundamentally generally leads to great pain and most of the time failure. Of course that can be said about experiments with trying to plant democracy and a capitalistic economy to other countries.

Of course we're not talking about Communism here, so the above doesn't really matter and that is the big point from TJive. --Ebralph 10:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Alas I also have very little time now, not enough for a full response right now. Just some points. Firstly, of course, why revert everything, including linguistic corrections? About whether all this should be in this article, I share TJive´s doubts. But if there is tit there should also be tat, so to say. Maybe the whole ´Criticism and advocacy´ section should be removed and the 'tit for tat' moved to the Communism article.

"Tit for tat" is bad as an argument itself, it is not fit for a page that doesn't concern the topic, i.e. this is about communist states, not capitalism. --TJive 19:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

But about some 'real' issues (not quite all of them yet). If a fault of Communist states is presented that similarly applies to non Communist states, then at least that should be mentioned, but really it invalidates the accusation. So one might say the whole thing should be removed. But if it represents a common belief then it is still worth mentioning. Such as that most poor capitalist countries (ie most countries in the world) have not escaped poverty either (and have often actually done a lot worse than, say, the USSR). It is true and (given the text as it was) relevant, my main criteria for writing something. The education-bit isn't written too well, but the point was that education is inherently indoctrination. That's unavoidable. You may be so used to the education you received that you assume it to be true. Only when presented with other ideas (eg through travelling or the internet) you might get to understand this. Only in the last few years have I started to realise how much I've been exposed to capitalist propaganda in the economics classes Í took.

Again, no solid qualifications only a generalization posited in the hopes of prior acceptance (i.e. ingrained prejudice). You are so familiar with propaganda you disseminate it without sleight. --TJive 19:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have to wonder what your expectations are for the use of this forum. This isn't a debating hall and I don't care for your crude analysis of "capitalist propaganda" more than the several (ostensibly) more studious treatments of it elsewhere (from Marcuse and Chomsky to every other faux "media analyst" hack). Yet you persist almost as if you believe that others' eyes are gazing down from a true course and you are here to set them proper. Do you honestly believe you generally have answers that are not available to any others you speak to? Rather esteemed opinion I should say. Almost as much it serves to excuse the fact that certain sources do not say what you want them to, so we label the results in broad categorizations by geography and the alleged economic structure of the country. NYT vs. Granma-the only difference is perspective, right? --TJive 19:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The belated industialisation in the USSR is a fact and obviously a partial cause of the fact that the environmental problems didn´t occur earlier. The threat of enormous polution in China (eg by cars) is so often mentioned in the media (at least in the Netherlands) that it certainly deserves a mention (at least as an addition to what was in the text). Same for the birth control program in China.

Communist ideology arose from the exploitation of workers. Of course. What else? Ever heard of Marx? :) DirkvdM 17:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard not everyone accepts Marx's premise or conclusion, as well. ":)" --TJive 19:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

---

I feel that TJive has explained his reasons for reverting the edits. Though POV was too broad a categorization, the reasons were well founded. The changes should be better sourced and should avoid the discussion of Communism itself. --Ebralph 10:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ideology

Let me give one simple illustration why Communist ideology is against nature: it condemns and outlaws the profit motive. A young man, unmarried, entering the work force has a powerful incentive to work hard, profit, make bucks, and impress a girl. Communism outlaws this. Any surprise (a) it failed (b) it never was more than pure fantasy? nobs 15:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have some major misconceptions. It abhors profiteering, but rewards those who have laboured to justify it. Ever heard of a gift economy? -- Natalinasmpf 16:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This is off-topic, but ok. Your argumentation is faulty in several respects. An ideology can't be against nature: it is an interpertation of nature. Your basic statement - going back to Adam Smith - is that the collective profits by every participant of that collective acting in self-intrest. I guess by in large it has worked. But there are enough examples where it hasn't worked. That is why there are regulations to prevent those excesses. And there are opposing examples: enough Kibutze have worked in a Communist fashion - very well indeed. The connecting element was something else then monetary profit: it was the idea of settling of the country. The point is: the profit doesn't have to be wealth, it can be something else. Communism requires the participating people to work because they believe in the profit of everybody, not only yourself. A noble principle, if not terribly realistic because in the end a mass of people behave pretty primitive. But noble principles are important and trying to make them more then a fantasy too. That is what the founding fathers did: they tried to live a fantasy. Washington could have done something else then become President (ala Napoleon) but he chose not to [4]. If that is the only argument against Communism you fail to miss the more problematic points of Communist ideology. --Ebralph 17:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple facts of Nature: Profits pay

• (1) all Taxes
• (2) all charitable contibutions;

without profit, there is

• (a) starvation,
• (b) disease, and
• (c) death.

To argue Capitalism is an ideology, is like saying the Law of gravity is an ideology. nobs 17:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Kibutze worked without monetary profits. Repeating your view doesn't make them true. BTW, the Law of gravity is not gravity itself. Newtons Law is an interpretation and in a wider sense an ideology. As it turned out, Einstein showed that it was faulty. Capitalism is an ideology, because it is an interpretation of reality - the same as the laws of physics. --Ebralph 18:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The Laws of Physics is an ideology? So Gravity is kinda like God, if a person so chooses to believe in God (or gravity), then it's true; however, all things being relative, than if a person so chooses not to believe in God, than God does not exist for that person, as does neither gravity, the Laws of Physics, or for that matter common traffic laws too, I suppose. nobs 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The Laws of Physics as stated by Newton or Einstein are an interpretation of reality, not reality itself. Just like a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. That is fine difference and even more important where non-mathematical things are concerned. So far you haven't bother to address my points and have reverted to rediculing my arguments. Very unconstructive, narrow minded and truely against furthering your horizon. That you view profits as essential for human existinence is fine with me but proves a certain lack of imagination. There are enough examples of societies working without being profit driven. It is a matter of mindset. --Ebralph 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So it's all a matter of perception; for example, I do not believe in traffic laws or stop signs. No one can impose thier morality on me and force me to believe in thier reality or existence. You cannot legislate morality. Stops signs are fine for you, if you want to believe in them. For me, excerising my free right of choice to define reality & truth as I see fit, do not exist. nobs 20:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I can choose to ignore traffic signs. It might not be conductive to my health or my freedom, but I can ignore them. Just because the US has traffic lights and stop signs to solve the issue of a crossing doesn't mean that is the only solution. For example there are ways to build a crossing without traffic lights or signs. Morality has nothing to do with it. In fact what is moraly right is matter of time and society you live in. It is a legislation of the majority. --Ebralph 20:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists make an inherently moral arguement; also stop signs, like God, are a matter of relative perception. If you choose to believe that stop signs exist (like God), then for you they exist. If I choose to believe stop signs do not exist (like God really does not exist), then for me, neither stop signs, nor God, exist. Any elementary public school student can explain the inherent, infallible logic of this arguement. nobs 20:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Moral has nothing to do with it. Nor does the belief in existence of something. Read Descartes if you want that. I think you might find Plato's_allegory_of_the_cave more enlightning. I note that you still haven't made one argument supporting your views. So far you have done nothing else except to try to insult me more or less indirectly. Very constructive. --Ebralph 20:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's all a matter of perception. You may say reality exists. You may get an arguement there. And you have not effectively rebutted the initial claim that people can be fed when consumption is greater than production, other than some vague reference to its a matter how you emotionally feel about the word "profit".nobs 20:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Turning around my point and trying to claim it for yourself is also not very productive. I not you still have not once brought an argument to support your view. But for your benefit: Communism does not try to consume more then production. That is your claim. What it says specificly is that the mode of distribution of limited resources should be different. Specificly the ownership of production facilities is addressed. It states that if they belong to all, then all should equally receive the benefit. --Ebralph 21:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

So now we are on to a new subject: legalized theft is the hallmark of a civilized society (we'll just ignore the questions regarding a person being paid for their labour now, comeback to it later, and deal with the new subject). nobs 21:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with legalized theft. The way that issue is settled is another matter. Look, if you want to educate yourself about Communism, read Marx and find out for yourself. All you do is dig for something to attack without taking a position yourself. Why don't you explain your POV? How can Profiteering be a law of nature? --Ebralph 21:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the Pipe thing was a reference to This_is_not_a_pipe --Ebralph 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's ignore the emotional arguements around who profits, or "profiteering" generally for now; let's begin with a definition of profit (or what Marx called surplus value). Then we can see Marx's fatal flaw with his automatic assumption that, after the workers rise up & seize the means of production, that there would indeed be any "surplus value" derived from the means of production, having abolished the "profit motive". From there we can move onto Marx's second flaw, his understanding of, or rendering the use of the term "value". nobs 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No emotional reference to "profiteering" intended. Indeed the argument is flawed in as far as that Marx believes that workers don't have a profit motive too. But the point you make is flawed as well: if people did not see the profit in monetary advantage, but in something different the thing would work. And that is a question of mind set. The important factor - which Kibutze have shown for example - is the mind set. Trying to force a mind set via law has always led to poor performance. Interestingly enough, the Russia of today is no better positioned then the Soviet Union of yesterday.

The other thing I have repeatedly pointed out, is that trying to predict future events is more then problematic. And that is where I see the major flaw in his theories. He tried to press history into a schema - a way too simple schema for humans. --Ebralph 22:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Digression: "Russia of today is no better positioned then the Soviet Union of yesterday"; can you explain how a person being able to (1) own their own home makes them "no better off"; (2) being able to participate in an employee stock purchase plan makes them "no better off"; (3) being able to employ another person for a routine job like unstopping a toilet without threat of imprisonment for Anti-Soviet agitation makes them "no better off". And I will reserve comment on the declaration that an "argument is flawed" based on a hypothetical supposition. nobs 01:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ever asked a Russian? The last time I was in Jekatarienburg and had a few talks you would find that they don't seem to care very much for your arguments. Ownership of a house wasn't disallowed in the Soviet Union, a (average) Russian would never particpate in a stock purchase plan and employing someone for such routine things were even done in the 80's. In an ecomic sense the average pensioner is far worse off today and for the rest their situation has not really improved. As to the other point: it is not hypothetical, it is the important point of the whole construction. Your argument stands and falls with exactly that. As soon as monetary advantage looses importance, your point is moot. And that is the construction around which you build up your concepts. There have been societies in the past, present and presumeably future in which your argument does not count. --Ebralph 02:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting & half true. The situation in Russia is somewhat similiar to post American Civil War Reconstruction in the American South. If you were twenty years old and just declared free, you could go to town and seek your fortune. If you were 40 years old, and working the land was all you knew, and now you were unemployed because the system failed & you lost your job, it wasn't so easy to start over. Same was true for Isreal coming out of Eygpt, the older generations' carcuses fell in the wilderness, while the younger generation entered into promise. There is no new thing under sun. nobs 02:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

On what basis do you say half true? Have you been there? Using analogy to put a new historic situation in context is fine to give you a reference point. But you must always be very careful of the differences. I think you might find better comparisons in the French Revolution or Weimar Germany. I spoke specificly with Russians Age 20 - 50 mostly.

• Russians will not invest in stocks, because they don't believe in money on paper in any form. I can't fault them terribly after have gone through a massive devaluation twice in the past 15 years. Most tend to find hard values (hardware, etc.) the only way to secure their existence. The trust in such institutions has been massivly undermined through these experiences and hasn't improved with what happened with Yukos.
• People do not believe politicians work in their interest. The basic mind set is that if you're a politician your either corrupt or dead. Actually there have been several political murders over the years. With such a mind there is no way to make people believe you can move something. If you tell them: look at American and what they could do, they say that is America, this is Russia.
• There is no way to work in Russia on bill. It's either cash up front or nothing at all. If you try to set up a business differently, you will surely crash. People do not feel much obligation to pay something. I know one business (big time company) that calculates 5% of it's payment moot, because that amount is forged. They employ people who do nothing else except clearing away the paperwork necessary for customs. And I'm not talking about some sort of military hardware but stones.
• If you would pay your taxes in a legal fashion you can easily end up paying more then 100% of your earnings. I'm not joking. I wouldn't be surprised if Yukos did evade taxes but then you have no real alternative in Russia. All this doesn't take into account the sort of people you attract by acting illigal.

Sorry, your comparision is sorely lacking. --Ebralph 10:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiemar is likewise a good parallel. Let me end this digression with a question: Is the arguement a return to Soviet slavery would be in the interests of fairness, justice and equality? nobs 16:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Principly I'm happy that the Soviet Union vanished in the trash can of history. But: don't make the error to believe it was solely or mainly the ideology that led to its downfall and is the problem in Russia. The change of system has not led to a change in their financial situation. The major issue is the mind set of the people which Russia has inherited from pre-Peter the Great Era. Peter the Great believed he could order modernity. The following czars did nothing to improve the situation and in the end you have Lenin and Stalin who solified the worst of the mind set. Now they at least have a chance to free themselves of this and maybe improve their future. Wrapping around to my original point: it is not the ideology but the mind set that is important. --Ebralph 18:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Digression into the minutiae: Perhaps a distinction between ideology and mind-set needs to be made. nobs 18:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

By no means. Ideologoy is a thought out interpertation of events with an explaination for the future. A mind set is far more far reaching. Do people like more sugar in there food or not (and thereby cause a strain on the health care)? Do most people believe politicians are corrupt? Those are the important questions which decide about success or failure in the end. That is a heaven wide difference to ideology. You would probably consider most European Democracies borderline to a Communist Society. All subscribe to much the same ideology but the mind sets are different. That is why some democracies work and some don't. --Ebralph 19:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So is ideology shaped by mind-set, or mind-set shaped by ideology? Or sometimes both or somtimes neither? nobs 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Good question, one I'll leave open as it isn't important for my point. Even if your question is only half serious. --Ebralph 21:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Student of rhetoric

Ok, leaving those two digressions partially unresolved, let's examine this piece:

We are leaving the issue Russia unresolved because you choose not to further follow that line. Indeed, Russia might be a great example to study the pros and cons of different ideologicly systems. On a economic scale, that is. I think we should make it clear that we are not discussing other issues.

We are not leaving the issue of Russia unresolved, we are leaving (as plainly stated) the two digressions unresolved. nobs 19:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• "point you make is flawed as well: if people did not see the profit in monetary advantage, but in something different the thing would work"
• Diagramed as such, reads: "point you make is flawed" [declarative judgement in the negative] supported by the following evidence: "if" [conditional], "but in something different" [another conditional basis] "would work" [suppositional premise].

Care to explain the logic or reasoning behind a declaritve judgement with two conditioned basis' and a suppositional premise appendage? nobs 01:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. I'll refomulate it in such a fashion so it may seem more concrete to you.

See for example The Suppositional Theory, Conditional Belief and Conditional Probability; first sentence reads,

"Let us put truth conditions aside for a while, and ask what it is to believe, or to be more or less certain..."

nobs 01:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

You assert that Communsim is in it's foundations against Nature. That is your assertion, albeit a bit compressed. Feel free to correct me on it. You follow that based on the concept that every idividuell is working for his own profit and that that lies in the nature of the human being which is why you say Communism is against Nature. I agree with you in so far, that it is a great issue Communism has failed to address and that that failure has lead to its downfall. Where I disagree with you is that human beings aren't more then selfish people looking to increase their own profit. I do not agree with you that that lies in the nature of people, it is a matter of mind set. You seemed to not see the difference between ideology and mind set and tried to make it more clear. It is a parameter of your argument. Which, if you turn around becomes conditional. If parameter not met, your argument would not work and therefore your argumentation, that it is against Nature is flawed. There - one condition, no suppositional premise. --Ebralph 16:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

With a judgement (See Declaratory judgment for its use & meaning in law; a declarative judgement in rhetoric is somehat different, the party using it presupposing (again, a suppositional premise) they have judicial authority to render such judgement, verdict, or opinion). nobs 19:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately were are not in the Soviet Union and therefore I have the authority to render such a judgement. --Ebralph 23:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

State v provincialism

Reverted & placed pending relative significance:

"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 [Durch] local Communist Party (CPN) [even had] held 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."

This article is entitled "states", not Communist provinces, or Communist regionalism, or Communist city councils. For example, this paragraphs begins with

"still exist countries where Communist parties have come to power",

and makes the assertion

"Durch Communist Party (CPN) even had a majority from World War II until 1989"

Here are the facts regarding the Communistische_Partij_Nederland#Size_of_the_CPN holding a majority in a Communist State. This paragraph is pure deceptive bullshit. nobs 05:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, look. Reiderland has a population of 7,000. I don't think it's "deceptive" in your terms. As far as I see, the CPN has way more members than required to hold a majority in that area. I think I will revert your removal. "States" qualify, because it's a form of government in power, albeit having no sovereignty, but a government enough. It's also important to show contrast between one form of communist government and the other. -- Natalinasmpf 06:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with nobs on the fact that most mentioned Examples are in fact not Communist states in the sense that they were a) a Nationstate b) Communist state by the definition of the communists themselves. In fact the passage actually mentiones it itself. It might be an interesting sidefact if the last sentence is mentioned upfront and linking away to a main article. --Ebralph 16:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Article title: "Communist state"

Subhead: "Definition of Communist state"

Lead sentence in paragrash: "There have been and still exist countries where Communist parties have come to power through democratic elections..."

example used: "the Dutch Communist Party (CPN)

Close inspection finds the example is pure bullshit after three lead-ins purporting that the Dutch Communist Party had come to power over the state or country in a "democratic election", and had been a majority party from 1945 to 1989. This is pure deception. nobs 17:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the rest was totally unintersting though. --Ebralph 18:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Womens rights in Communist countries

You should try to tone down a bit. You've been POVing against Communism continously in this article. As much as there is negative things to say about the Stalinist (and most pure Marxist) versions of Communism, we are trying to work on something that has informative, not indoctrinational character. Some of the claims you have made about Russia and East Europe are so obviously undifferenciated that I would have blushed had I said something like that to them. Have you ever been to Eastern Europe? Have you ever been in a country with Communists in power? Your statement about the economic situations in Russia and the womens right thing of communist countries is just so way out. It shows that you clearly have never seen any of those countries for yourself. In your own interest, I suggest you go there and spend a while. Speak to the people. Get an impression of what your talking about. To the womens right issue:

• In East Germany every child had the right for a day-care center place.
• The amount of women employed in technical Jobs in East Germany was 2-10x higher then in West Germany.
• Already in WW2 women were allowed into the Army of the Soviet Union.
• The Marxist Theory does not address the issue of divorce - it does address the issue of equality.

BTW, I still haven't seen much on making your own points. --Ebralph 23:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's examine the context; section reads,

"A "Communist State" is defined as a state ruled by a Communist Party. But here, the term Communism usually refers to the ultimate goal of the party to one day reach a phase in which everyone works according to their ability, and takes according to their needs of their own volition. The intermediate stage of Socialism is meant to create a 'new man' who voluntarily acts in the best interest of the community. In such a 'state', Marxist dictum theorizes no form of government is needed..."

No reference to (1) Russia (2) Eastern Europe (3) East Germany (4) Red Army. The context clearly is discussing Marxist Theory, and not any derived application. Therefore, the above postings is built upon a false premise. nobs 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Marxist Theory evidently didn't take into consideration things like rape, murder, or even the occassional drunken brawl, as explained here. nobs 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Tell me where Adam Smiths "The wealth of nations", Platos "The State" or Rousseaus "The social contract" discuss the issue of womens right? Why were socialist states very good at it? Marx wrote a philosophical theory, not a discussion of judical details. The discussion here is about the philosophical foundation. The insertion is inappropriate. --Ebralph 23:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again, Adam Smith does not propound a theory or ideology. Let's expand the issue of women's rights momentarily. Too often it is presented as affording younger women & girls opportunities young men & boys have. This is an extremly narrow view.

Let's take the case were a man & woman of the same age live together for 30 years and the woman has spent her life rearing children. At age 50, the man disposes of her & throws her out on the street. She has no work experience & limited marketable skills. The very idea of why man in process of civilization instituted Law and government applies here, not just in theory, but in application. A civilized and compassionate society would dictate that the man has an obligation to the woman, and to enforce the obligation. Did Marx, in all his brilliant writings, ever consider this question? Why the hell do governments exist? Just to feed the rich? Bullshit. nobs 00:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations" is not a theory, a ideology? That is truely a good one. Looking at Adam_Smith#Works the Author of the Wikipedia entry calls it a Manifesto.

The definition from your link: An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society . I would say Adam Smith fulfills this requirement very well.

Your critic is like looking at a map of a country and saying that the town X isn't represented well with all its streets. In fact Marx did not address the issue at all. I don't think he ever claimed completeness. I don't think the Founding Fathers talked about such issues in their writings for that matter. Does that mean they are support injustice towards women?

The other point is: first you dismiss my concrete examples when I bring some, then criticise that Marx doesn't address practical application. No, Marx did not have an answer to every question that comes from organizing a government. Yes, the adherents found a solution even so. Tell me where the other books addresses such issues. --Ebralph 11:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Extract from the wiki article: "The Wealth of Nations was influential since it did so much to create the field of economics and develop it into an autonomous systematic discipline. In the Western world, it is arguably the most influential book on the subject ever published."

Comment: "autonomous systematic discipline" can be interpreted to read "science"; "science", in the contemporaneous use of the term, not modern "science" in its perverted rational junk science use or meaning (the wiki authors' use of the term "Manifesto", I suspect is added for sheer dramatic poetry, and is detractive).

As to id; we derive idea and idiot from the etymology. Freud uses id, ego, & superego; but too much B.S. is derived from excess wordiness in an attempt to restate age old phenomenea in flowery poetic language and present it as "scholarship" or some new "idea" (understanding, interpretation, discovery, etc.). "There is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9; the words of wise King Solomon). nobs 17:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing of which answers the question I have asked you: Tell me where Adam Smiths "The wealth of nations", Platos "The State" or Rousseaus "The social contract" discuss the issue of womens rights?

As to the other thing: if you think rationalism perverted be my guest. But by the very definition rationalism can't be "perverted". It only doesn't fit your idea of the world. --Ebralph 20:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, your train of thought has lost me. I stated

(A) Capitalism is not an ideology.

Which we don't agree on. Your argument for A) is that it isn't systematicly portraited in a closed fashion. Just because there is one authoritative person doesn't make it an ideology. And Etymology is no argument.

(B) Marxist ideology mislabelled Capitalism as an ideology.

If you do not accept A, B can not follow

(C) Marxist ideology has numerous flaws, including (i) the idea of no government necessary, and (ii) does not consider the issues of womens rights.

i) no comment - I don't want to start up another train of thought; ii) Is irrelevant in the context because that is a question which Marx never considered. There probably are Marxist authors which do discuss that issue.

(D) Adam Smith does not propound an ideology in Wealth of Nations.

I do not agree on that. Several stated arguments require a certain amount of acceptance. "School of thought" is fine with me as well, though.

How you surmise Adam Smith discusses Women's Rights in the Wealth of Nations from the above stated premises, I have no idea. Secondly, as to a discussion regarding Rousseau or Plato, I have no idea what your talking about, as you have introduced the two authors twice now, but have not developed any ideas on them, and I have made no comments on either.

That was the point when I mentioned Adam Smith. He writes a book about economics. Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Political_theory wrote a very influential work about political systems, almost as influential as Charles_de_Secondat,_Baron_de_Montesquieu for the formation of democracy in the US. These (and other like works) are the foundations of which Marx collectivly calls Capitalism. That is why I mentioned them in this connection - Other works on the same subject do not adress such issues either. Nobody criticises them about it.

Lastly, Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, a very different work than "Wealth of Nations", which is, as the title states, "a theory", observe this interesting extract,

"A system of natural philosophy may appear very plausible, and be for a long time very generally received in the world, and yet have no foundation in nature, nor any sort of resemblance to the truth. The vortices of Des Cartes were regarded by a very ingenious nation, for near a century together, as a most satisfactory account of the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. Yet it has been demonstrated, to the conviction of all mankind, that these pretended causes of those wonderful effects, not only do not actually exist, but are utterly impossible, and if they did exist, could produce no such effects as are ascribed to them. But it is otherwise with systems of moral philosophy, and an author who pretends to account for the origin of our moral sentiments, cannot deceive us so grossly, nor depart so very far from all resemblance to the truth." nobs 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

In science, no conclusion is ever final. --Ebralph 19:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

2 + 2 ≠ 4 nobs 20:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The above being an example of the dreaded argumentum absurdum. nobs 21:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

2+2 can indeed be something else then 4, depending in which mathmatical space you are working. If I define my set as mod 3, then 2+2 = 1; --Ebralph 09:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this link may be useful --> Toynbee's The Movement of Schism-and-Palingenesia. If you will permit me to be your spirit guide for a moment, some people find Toynbee difficult to read, so pay attention to the subtext where Toynbee quotes Mark xii. 25, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in Heaven", and you gain an appreciation of both Toynbees' meaning & his stinging sense of humor.

But read that first before MARXISM, SOCIALISM, AND CHRISTIANITY. nobs 22:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought we de-bloated the intro

we still have that junk in there about how "blah blah blah, anarchists, Trotskyists, and post-Soviet communists view 'Communist state' as an oxymoron." it's not an oxymoron, all it means is a Communist Party-run state, that's why "Communist" is capitalized. the intro's not the place to put POV about how they weren't really communist -- that can be addressed elsewhere in the article, preferably in a more succinct manner J. Parker Stone 22:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that with the term 'Communist State' (capitalised or not) people will usually think that means there's Communism in such a country. And who can blame them. So just stating in the intro that it is a State ruled by a Communist Party is not enough, because people will not get the subtlety like you and I do (I hope... :) ). It needs more explaining. Whether all the different groups who disagree with the definition need to be named is a different matter. Maybe that could be moved to the next section Definition of a "Communist state". The intro could then be reduced to something simple like A Communist State is defined here as a State run by a Communist Party, which doesn't mean Communism is implemented in such a country. Or something similar, possibly a little more elaborate. DirkvdM 07:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

what has to be said in the intro para is that "Communist state" means a state in which a Communist party has a monopoly on power. obviously since they're calling themselves Communists they think they're following Marxism-Leninism correctly. whether other people do (Trotskyists, anarchists, other loon lefties etc.) is something that can be addressed elsewhere in the article Dr. Trey 10:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, I put a smiley behind the 'hope' that you would get the subtleties, but now you make a serious faux pas. Communism can mean all sorts of things, but it is certainly not the same as Marxism-Leninism (which is the reason for the separate term...). Which is the whole point here. Also, the fact that a party calls itself Communist doesn't mean that it sees Marxism-Leninism as the right path to Communism. There are many definitions of Communism, but the ways people think they might get there are innumerable. DirkvdM 18:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

no need to "oh dear" me, i get the subtleties, but they're irrelevant. "communism" has generally referred to Marxist communism since The Communist Manifesto was written and moreso after Lenin and the Bolsheviks first attempted to put it into practice in Russia. no there aren't "many definitions" of communism, there are however disagreements over whether states like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China are truly communist, yes. but throughout the 20th century, as we know, "communism" referred to Marxist-Leninist communism, as it was the only one being successfully attempted in various countries. Dr. Trey 01:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the 'oh dear' :) . I suppose the central problem is we come from different backgrounds, so to say (with me being the odd one out I must admit). I've learned about communism through a university education and, worse still, a philosophy study. So I tend to focus on the original, generic meaning of things, whereas most people take things to mean what they mean in everyday life. And there have been hardly any examples of true communism in practise - the kibbutzim are probably the only sizeable example that comes fairly close. So when some states are ruled by a communist party it makes sense that people start seeing that as what communism is.

The most used definition of communism is 'do what you can, take no more than what you need'. There are more definitions (forgot them, though), but that doesn't matter. What matters is that Communist States don't practise communism (but state socialism or what ever it should be called). And that's not obvious, so it needs to be pointed out.

Equalling communism to Marxism is, though wrong, fairly acceptable. But equalling it to Leninism and the like is just plain wrong because that's a strategy to one day (hopefully - keep on dreaming) achieve a society in which communism would be possible by implementing a form of socialism as an intermediate state. Remember this is an encyclopedia. So just following public opinion won't do. It has to be 'scientific' and thus take a step back and explain ideologies where they apply. Where in the article that needs to be done is another matter. See my proposal above. DirkvdM 08:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Note, by the way, this phrase in the kibbutz article: "Marxists did not believe in nations". DirkvdM 08:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

dude you can pump all the communist philosophizing you want into the communism article, this is an article on Communist states, all of which have followed Marxism-Leninism in some form or another. no need for convoluted, unnecessary explanations in the intro. Dr. Trey 06:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

So we agree. At least to some extent. The intro is not the right place for it, except for a short mention (the fact that Communist States have little to do with Communism is not quite obvious, so there should be some mention of that). How much should go into the next section and how much should be reserved for the Communism article is a fine point. I moved the detailed stuff down. The next step of pruning some of that to the Communism article would require more time than I have now. DirkvdM 09:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The special case of China

The section on "the special case of China" is nonsense. There is no debate on remains committed to Marxism-Leninism is subject to debate, but a "Communist state" is merely a standard political science definition for a Communist Party-run regime, and of course China is governed by the Communist Party. The CPC's committees and its organization departments at each level use their nomenklatura authority to control the appointment and dismissals of key officials throughout the government ministries, agencies, legislative organs, and state-owned industries at their own level and one level below. It remains a basic fact that much of the economy is largely in the hands of the state bureaucracies at various levels or state-owned enterprises. Cadres of the party-state, not private entrepreneurs, are still the dominant economic players. The military is commanded by the CPC Central Military Commission, which is accountable to the Politburo's Standing Committee. Law enforcement remains under the coordinated control of the party, using its nomenklatura authority. The apex of the Chinese political system is the Politburo Central Committee and its presiding Standing Committee, which are essentially not accountable to any state agency or to any judicial restraints. I will make the necessary changes to clarify the fact that there is no ambiguity as to whether or not China is ruled by the CPC. 172 01:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If corruption and lobbyism controls law enforcement and political parties then perhaps they should be called neoliberal instead, which can be compared with United States. The interesting thing is not who controls something but what controls them. Money control us all. --TobiasBengtsson 15:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If there are or are not parallels between a Communist state and other kinds of political movements is irrelevant for the previous remark by 172.--Ebralph 15:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Self Serving Term

"The term "Communist state" originated in Western society"

This much of the article is true. "Communist state" is not a term used in Marxist theory, in Marxist theory the idea of a "Communist state" is entirely contradictory. The claim by some governments to be communist, Marxist, or socialist has to examined given the objective historical facts and the meanings of these terms as understood in Marxist theory. Likewise the claim by western capitalist governments that particular governments are communist, Marxist or socialist has to examined given the objective historical facts and the meanings of these terms as understood in Marxist theory. Historically in both cases the use of the term "Communist State" has been self serving, this fact is entirely absent from the article.

Naming

This is only one name, "Communist state" in English? no "socialist state"? i am doing interwikis. because both of those calling exist in Chinese, got a little confused. --User:Yacht (talk) 13:11, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Socialism in the West is ordinarily used to refer to social democracy although it is also used by totalitarian Marxists.

The person above has no clue what he/she is talking about. -- WGee 17:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

One shouldn't forget the Leninists used the words communism/socialism as synonyms, until in 1920s the revisinists decided to call themselves only socialists; thus distinction was made.--Constanz - Talk 08:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)