Wikipedia

Talk:Socialist state/Archive 5

< Talk:Socialist state
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Talks and archives of talks of pages redirected to this article:

Talk:Marxist-Leninist government/archive 1 -- Talk:Marxist-Leninist government

Stan's mention of what he perceived to be a pro-communist bias (by omission) isn't "silly". 172 has asserted that "the near-elimination of poverty and the doubling of life expectancy...were undoubtedly witnessed in the two largest Communist states, China and the Soviet Union." (Talk:Communist government). (I don't understand why, if he believes it was undoubtedly witnessed, that he doesn't want it included in Wikipedia.) I guess Mervyn Matthews must be a right-wing nutjob and UNDP China a waste of everyone's time and money. --The Cunctator

Once again, I'm still being slandered and misrepresented, despite my decision to stop editing articles. I said that somebody could note that trend if he were coming from a pro-Communist slant. I wrote the comment in a piece describing how propagandists can manipulate history like statistics and the dangers of sweeping generalizations. Noting that trend was an example of how misleading propaganda can be based on accurate historical facts. Like those propagandists, you completely misrepresented my statements by quoting a selected portion out of context.

So please stop slandering me. You've already won. I'm not touching your POV-reverts anymore. I will not create or edit ANY article anymore. So you no longer have to direct these misrepresentations against me. 172

I've not seen or editted this article before, but for what its worth it seems to me to be as balanced a view as is possible on this inevitably controversial subject. jimfbleak 06:10 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

There's clearly an edit war over Communist state, with both sides claiming to be NPOV. (I'm not involved) --Evercat

The article is about a simple straight-forward political science definition of the term Communist state (ie, a system of government). It is NOT about communism which is discussed in detail elsewhere. Fred Bauder refuses to accept that (even though everyone else on the page does) and continually introduces anti-communist POV amendments which no-one but himself accepts. (He tried the same antics on the China page.) Even if his facts were NPOV (and that is highly debatable) they are as irrelevant on a page on a system of government as a discussion on Prince Charles' sex life would be on the page defining what a constitutional monarchy in constitutional terms is, or adding into a page defining federal republic a discussion on George W. Bush's linguistic deficiencies. But no amount of telling Bauder that this is purely a page on a system of government, not the rights and wrongs of communism, seems to get through. Paragraphs taking about concentration camps and liquidations belong in a page on communism, where their validity or otherwise can be discussed. But this is only a page about a political science definition of the political science term Communist state. This argument here and elsewhere has been going on for days but Bauder still will not cop on what this page is actually about and what it isnt about. Help gratefully accepted to stop this nonsense and tell this guy the difference between an article on communism and one merely about a system of government. ÉÍREman

Could it be resolved to everyone's satisfaction with something like "for a discussion of communist states in practice, see Communism"? (or whatever the page that discusses it is) --Evercat

It is a useful suggestion. I will leave it to people who have more detailed knowledge of the complex nature of articles on communism, China, the USSR to decide which are the best links to make. (I was drafted in with my political science hat on to contribute to the creation of a political science page on Communist state.) The only problem is that the user in question has already been in edit wars elsewhere trying to add in the views he is now trying to add on to this page. I suspect it is a case of finding somewhere to get these Donald Rumsfeld-ish view expressed, so that may not necessarily stop the attempts here. :-(. But we'll hope for the best. ÉÍREman 06:09 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

So far there has had to be eleven or twelve revertions to remove Fred Bauder's additions to the Communist state and even he admits his contribution is 'unbalanced'. But as so many people have commented at this stage (see Tannin on the relevant talk page and on my talk page, also 172, etc) even if it was balanced and NPOV (and it is miles off it at the moment) it still would be completely the wrong page on which to put the information. Everyone but Fred (and also the person who is the latest reincarnation of Lir) accept that. Given that there has had to have been 11 or 12 revertions of his POV vandalism by a number of people, nobody (except 'Lir' - surprise surprise! Some things never change!) agrees with what he had doing, and I presume his revertions to his own version must have taken place at least 11 or 12 times, which means more than 20 revertions in the last few days, with a couple already today. So please will someone protect this page to stop this ungoing nightmare. It is unfair on all the people who worked on this page and produced a quality contribution that one person for his own POV agenda is able to continuously screw it up. It is unfair on Tannin, on 172 on myself and now others that we have to waste our time undoing his damage when we could be doing other articles. And it is unfair on wiki that one person's right wing obsession is allowed to destroy a balanced page by littering it with highly POV opinions which even if NPOV belong on a different page, not that one. So please, someone, protect that page and let the rest of us do other things besides having to clean up Fred Bauder's mess on Communist state all the time. ÉÍREman 15:00 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

The reversion number by people removing Bauders' POV rant is now climbing towards 20. No-one but Lir has come out to support him. Everyone agrees (and he does himself) that his add-ins are "unbalanced". Everyone but him are agreed that even if balanced he is putting them on the wrong page. How many times does this user have to flout the will of all the people who worked on the page, all the people who have visited the page, all the users (bar Lir) who have commented on his actions and who have condemned his bahaviour, before someone with authority decides to act and prevent Fred Bauder from continuously vandalising this page? ÉÍREman 10:55 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)


Jtdirl/172/Tannin and others keeps reverting Mr. Bauder's contribution which roughly states:

  • Typically a communist state is characterized by a command economy...such a state is characterized by the division of the population into two castes, party members and the rest of the population. Only a small group, the politbureau, typically hold any real power. In such states, a large secret police apparatus tends to closely monitor the population. Likewise, concentration camps and other facilities are used to incarcerate and "liquidate" political dissidents.
  • There have been two major communist states, The Soviet Union and its satellites and the People's Republic of China. Minor states include Albania, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Viet Nam and North Korea.
  • A communist state typically arises during a time of general international unrest as a result of a communist revolution lead by a national communist party.
  • The application of orthodox communist doctrine to development of a country and building of socialist institutions has historically proven to be problematic.

I know that jtdirl, mav, 172, and others view me as an "mongrel asshole-idiot cockroach troll from hell"; however, here I am once again vandalizing the wikipedia by asking what is so wrong with the above statements. I feel that statements to this effect should be part of the article.

I once again re-iterate that I do not feel it is appropriate for jtdirl and 172 to advocate banning Mr. Bauder simply because they have some (from the POV of myself and Mr. Bauder) insifficiently explained issue with Mr. Bauder's work, nor is it appropriate for them to slander him by saying that he has a "totalitarian mindset". I hope that, at some point, the wikipedia will add a chatroom so that we can all discuss issues such as this, in a "real-time format".

I know that jtdirl and 172 feel that they have explained this issue and "beat the bush to death", so to speak, but the fact remains that nobody has actually taken Mr. Bauder's contribution and explained why each and every sentence is 100% unacceptable. I feel this must be done, in all fairness to Mr. Bauder.

Like a Virgin

Number 1.: The below refers to communism and the politics of communism. The article is about a political science term communist state, a different thing as everyone but Fred and Adam's creatures understand and totally accept. Those bits that are somewhat relevant are already covered in much greater detail and in better english in the article.

*Typically a communist state is characterized by a command economy...such a state is characterized by the division of the population into two castes, party members and the rest of the population. Only a small group, the politbureau, typically hold any real power. In such states, a large secret police apparatus tends to closely monitor the population. Likewise, concentration camps and other facilities are used to incarcerate and "liquidate" political dissidents.

Putting a line through the text hardly qualifies as an explanation of what is wrong with the text. Like a Virgin


Number 2. User Like a Virgin said I know that jtdirl, mav, 172, and others view me as an "asshole idiot cockroach troll from hell"; Actually Mav has been nothing but polite. So has 172. Zoe had hardly heard of this user and I left a welcoming note on their talk page responding to an earlier one from another person suggesting that Like A Virgin is the latest Adam troll by saying that I did not care if it was Adam again once they worked well with people and was constructive. What is missing the above weird line is one word, 'Jimbo'. For their original draft, he too was mentioned, then censored out, (they drafted this bit on the talk page to Communist state, then made a muck up and blanked the page. I found the blank page, went to look at the earlier versio and came across all of this, which when reinstated by LaV a few minutes later was found to be sans Jimbo!) presumably because they realised that if they were a brand new user, they would not have heard of jimbo, let alone have himcalling them a troll. (And how did a new user know we even used the word 'troll'?)

Lol, yes mav and 172 are nothing but polite...lol...that's why mav has a "Im not nice because Im an INTJ" disclaimer on his page...yes...and 172 is nice too...mmm...Jimbo, unlike some people, hasn't resorted to any personal attacks that I am aware of. That is why he was removed. BTW, troll is a internet term, not a wiki term.

As has been mentioned by others on the wiki list, this user's edit pattern is almost identical to the various earlier Adam creations, and Shino Baku. They use of language is the same. The OTT paranoia is the same. And they like all of the Adam family share a hatred of the same people; 172, Zoe, Mav, Jimbo and myself. Like a Virgin let the cat out of the bag by declared her hate list before anyone had even noticed she existed, let alone had a row with her over anything. So as with Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber, Adam's new strategy seems now to be to launch his troll attack in waves of two. It is a sad day for Fred when the only people defending him are Shino Baku and Like a Virgin, the latest wave of Adam's trolls to hit wiki. ÉÍREman 11:52 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

ITS IDENTICAL! Lir, unlike Jtdirl, has never once taken a user's multi-paragraph insert, and deleted it. NEVER. Yes, it is easy to spot a Lir. Next time Lir plans to use a three-pronged pincer attack and simultaneously add information on German aircraft of World War II, information on Israeli Supreme Court Cases, and information on the flora of central China, ALL while disagreeing with Jtdirl on whether regime is a POV term. Oh, the horror continues... Like a Virgin

Will someone please put a 'protect' on the Communist state page. A compromise was worked out, in which I moved Fred Bauder's controversial additions to his own page, called Communist government. Fred is working on his text there. But The Cunctator is determined to ignore that compromise and keeps putting in the text from the second page back into Communist state and ignores appeals not to do so. The result is a screwed up Communist state page with text in it that (a) is not relevant to that page and belongs elsewhere, and (b) is now elsewhere, where Fred is happily working on it. Please please stop this mayhem. Leave the Communist state page in a protected state so that people can get on to work on the second page and other things, rather than constantly having to undo The Cunctator's mucking around. ÉÍREman 05:22 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Above moved from Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles. WikiLove to all. Martin

The term "communist state" is not the formal title for a political system. It is a generic term, and is nowhere a formally adopted title. It is written with lower case letters and not capitals. I cite Fowler on the matter: "socialist, republican, conservative, democratic, etc., as normal adjectives when not party titles". In opposition to this there are only one individual's ex cathedra pronouncements as Pope of Political Science. ☮ Eclecticology 20:36 17 May 2003 (UTC)

I pointed out that China and the Soviet Union largely alleviated poverty, that is provided almost everyone with the bare essentials for survival, and that life expectancy had roughly doubled under these regimes from 1917 to 1991 in the case of the Soviet Union and from 1949 to today in the case of Communist China. But I was making the point that a history cannot simply notice some kind of correlation like what I've just mentioned and infer causation. Nor can he notice a seemingly positive objective trend, stop there, and just praise the ruling regime.

For instance, the Soviet Union built up its economy, defeated an invader at the cost of 27 million lives greatly improved living standards, and won respect globally. However, it still achieved all this in the wrong manner. The structure of its economy and political bureaucracy couldn't handle the modernized society that it created, failing to meet it commitment with its citizens, which took the form of the money overhang and hidden-inflation that could no longer be ignored by its citizens. Every ruble represented a liability of the Soviet government and the economy, which was the government for that matter, could not respond with the real growth to match the wages of its citizens with real goods and services. The well-educated middle class that it reared also grew tired of the autocracy, which was too much of a reemergence of Czarist absolutism, the kind of Czarist absolutism that helped to unite the intelligentsia with basically all urban popular sectors against the old order during a period of economic crisis, which almost always brings up pent-up conflict, brings dislocation to the forefront of discussion, and brings up a reformist or revolutionary drive in response. While I'm not an enthusiast of the modernization theory, this middle class was ready to engage in a real civic society, not something restrictive controlled from above. It's far easier for an autocracy to over an country of peasants, and autocratic government in such societies has its historical place. And It has done wonders for East Asia, namely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, later Malaysia, and now China and Vietnam over the past 50 years or so. China especially. I have no problem admitting that I've long argued that China's development since the Communist revoluion has been the most encouraging trend of the second half of the 20th century. But its path has been quite diffrent from Russia's despite the superficial similarities.

The Stalinist centrally planned economy, in contrast, was a victim of its success that the stage for its collapse, and Russia now is paying that cost with the sheer misery opened up by Russia's transition. The collapse of Communism rendered hundreds of millions impoverished and destitute in a such rapid period of time that still has me shocked. But the Soviet economy helped to lay the groundwork for that, creating a system that influential segments of its population would be willing to dismantle and replace with something with ultimately more potential, but at the expense of inhuman misery.

Industrializing the Soviet Union also wasn't a pleasant process. While its economy was quite good at extensive growth, essentially the mobilization of resources, it did so in a very brutal manner, with which I'm sure you're aware. The economy was built by the amazing increases in output of natural resources, minerals, fuels, and so forth during the Stalinist years, but to understand why the Stalinist era was so costly in terms of causalities take into consideration that those industries were extracted in remote regions where few lived. That's where prison labor came in and I doubt that I need to say any more.

So I don't think that it was appropriate to add those kinds of trends that I listed because they would require the proper context to help understand them. The same was the case with Fred Bauder's sweeping generalizations. They simply do not work for explaining China's path of development or the development of any other Communist state other than the Soviet Union and perhaps North Korea. His edits also don't explain anything in context. He points out that Communist states have starved their economies to develop their military sectors. But this has nothing to do with what Communists have seen as a desirable path of development. States like the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Vietnam prior to reunification had many reasons to become militaristic that had little to do with the structures of the Communist state or ideology. The Soviet Union had to deal with civil war from 1917-1921, then World War II, and finally the Cold War, which I've longed argued stalled attempts for reforms and ultimately left Soviet Communism impossible to reform from within, which would've probably been possible had it not been engaging in a Cold War with the entire Western world, with the world's largest economies (US, W. Germany, Britain, France, Japan, etc.), which combined accounted for a far greater productive capacity. The Soviet Union was left devoting up to a quarter of its economy (probably more when you consider how military-sectors industries were related to the civilian sector, paying the wages for instance that workers would use to buy goods from the civilian sector. The West, with a combined economic capacity far larger did not have its economy bogged down in such a manner. China today, however, does not have an economy bogged down by the military sector. His comments thus were confusing, conflating correlation seen in a few Communist states with an inborn "characteristic".

Communist states often provoke hostility from the West (threatening global markets and using their resources for their development and not the development of core countries is their historical duty after all). So they're often militaristic in response. China, with relatively good relations with the West has avoided that trap, and thus avoided the trap of starving its consumer economy for the military. 172, from Talk:The Cunctator

This is an interesting analysis. There is often far more than just communism involved in the collapse of a communist state. A severely backward economy cannot hope to become affluent without a serious injection of economic discipline to insure that the return on capital is reinvested in infrastructure. Unfortunately, foreign investors prefer to export profits to pay dividends to shareholders back home where there is no such desparate need for new infrastructure. A real communist dictatorship in Congo would be an improvement over the prevailing situation, which has earned that country the distinction of having the conflict with the highest death toll since World War II. ☮ Eclecticology 18:33 20 May 2003 (UTC)
For what I know of West Africa the legacy of communist experiences is somewhat better that the legacy of authoritarian pro-west regimes.
Ericd 05:32, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- So how many communist states still remain? I can think of Cuba, North Korea, China, Vietnam for sure, but are Laos, Mongolia or any of the others still communist states?

Hopeless Confusion

Impossible to seperate Marxist propaganda from fact. Have to start over.

The distinction between Communist (Big C) and communist (small c) has been hopelessly blurred -- in my not so humble opinion, purposely!

We should present the POV of Western analysts on the Big/Little distinction AND ALSO SEPARATELY try to describe the POV of Marxists (assuming it's even comprehensible) on the distinction.

In my 35+ years study of Marxism, I've found confusing terminology to be one of their chief propaganda weapons. I hope this article can straighten out some of the confusion. --Uncle Ed 16:50, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's also impossible to separate anti-Marxist propaganda from fact.
The big C/little c distinction needn't be so blurred if people stick to a definition. Big C refers to parties; little c to theory and doctrine. Human nature on both sides, and its lack of intellectual rigor has more to do with this confusion than any intentional act by anybody. For Wikipedia a part of the problem is the forced capitalization (no pun intended) of the first letter in a title so that the link communisim invariably leads to the article Communism. It would be nice if our technical people could find a way atound that. A definition is a tool; it is not a provable hypothesis.
What evidence is there that the POV of "Western analysts" would be any more comprehensible than a Marxist one? It's more to the advantage of the anti-Marxists to create confusion and misinformation. It's more to the advantage of anti-Marxists to link communism with such outrages as Stalin's pogroms, when such events had more to do with Stalin than Marxism.
35+ years of study -- Wow! My study only goes back to 1961. It is interesting to note that the 1888 translation of the Communist Manifesto which has been added at Wikisource follows the German original. Big C is used for the noun, and little c is used for the adjective. Big C is also used when the adjective is a part of a proper name. Marx himself should not be held responsible for that confusion. ☮ Eclecticology 18:14, 2004 Feb 9 (UTC)
I bow to your 43 years of study, sir! Anyway, I took lots of breaks -- all those murders were too depressing :-(
Shall we work on the distinction between (a) Political parties which controlled countries (Big C) and (b) "the stage of society which Marx predicted would inevitably follow capitalism and socialism"? --Uncle Ed 19:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This is an agreeable basis. (Unfortunately, the software engendered part of the problem won't go away that easily.) (C/c)ommunist state remains a problem, because it can be interpreted to mean either a state run by a Communist Party or a state run on communist principles whether or not the ruling party calls itself Communist. Of course too there can be states which claim to be run on Marxist principles, which a living Marx would quickly disclaim.
Both left and right can agree that the topic is a mess. I suspect too that a solution for dealing with it depends on a global treatment of the term (C/c)ommunist in all of its contexts. There are strongly held POV's on both sides of this issue with each side seeing its POV as more neutral than that of its opponents. To say that either side sets about to purposely create confusion is to start off on the wrong foot, when in reality both sides are equally confused. Is there enough collective intellectual will to deal with this issue fairly? ☮ Eclecticology 18:40, 2004 Feb 10 (UTC)

Merging with Marxist-Leninist government

It is very strange see the two articles speaking basically about the same to develop independently. I took the liberty to put both onto one basket. The resulting article possibly needs splitting, but after some better merging them first. Mikkalai 23:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comparison with Nazism

The comparison is between the things which actually occur when the idea is carried into practice, and the degree and comprehensiveness of force necessary to do so. The section therefore belongs in the government article, not in theoretical articles like the old Communist state article which sets forth the formal organization of a typical Communist governement nor in the Communism article which sets forth the theoretical basis of Communism (and communism). Merging Marxist-Leninist Dictatorship which deals with practical consequences like the Gulag, the Red Terror, the Great Purge, the famines, etc into Communist State is a poor idea if there is a notion that these verifiable consequences are to be excluded from the article. You are just setting yourself up for a terrific edit war. I concede the material could also be included in other articles like totalitarianism, but it belongs here too, at least until we put the criminals who killed all those people on trial as the Nazis were at Nuremberg. No one should ever read about the history of practical Communism without coming to grips with the realities of that history and imagine that it can be carried into practice without risk. Fred Bauder 03:49, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't forget that communist state is actually not communist state is actually oxymoron. Don't get lost in the buzzword wordplay here. There never was such thing as "practical communism" exept for from under pens of the cold war warriors. Moreover, it was not the state (suppose it was communist) i.e., an implementation of the idea, that went bad, it was the idea itself wrong. From comparison of nazism and communism one may safely derive only one idea: modern technology makes a charismatic dictator a menace for the whole mankind, rather than "in one country" (I am alluding to socialism in one country :-). As for putting on trial, aren't you too late? What about putting Nero or French Revolution on trial? What about Gengis Khan? Napoleon? Butchers, I'd say. And neither nazists, nor communists. Mikkalai 06:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what the following sentence was supposed to mean:

There has never been a leader of a state who has called his state communist (lower case 'c'). In these states the distinctions between state and party become blurred and there is usually a command economy.

Please, anyone who has a clue about the intended meaning, fix it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_state/Archive_5&oldid=1137192302"