Talk:Communism/Archive 4

Political Philosophy vs. Political Practice

I propose recognizing and developing a dichotomy of "Political Philosophy or Political Practice" in considering how communism exists in theoretical practice and how it has been manifested in the various societies that have based their practices on it. The discussion of "Force" below picks up on this, but I think is not objective enough, in that it is essentially a defense of Communism the philosophy because it seems to propose that political practice can be mostly separated.

Consider that certain ways of political philosophy might lend themselves to corrupt practical manifestation. If you wholly separate discussion of the theory from the practice, it would be more difficult to trace this correspondence.

Until such a dichotomy can be shown to successfully hold for Communism, I think it's closer to the truth to make objective reference to the problematic implementations, e.g.:

"Communism is a philosophy that espouses X, Y and Z. However, there have been significant pratical difficulties in realizing these goals, namely 1, 2 and 3." This is only a suggestion on how to handle this IF it is determined that Communism, not say Leninism or some such, is the best locus for this discussion.

Force

I recently read through this article quickly, and I have to say that there seemes be a lot of people confusing communism and totalitarian governments. Yes, some totalitarian governments have called themselves communists while killing people - just as christians have called themselves christians while killing and murdering non-christians. Does that make communism into something that is about murdering people? Is christianity about murdering non-christians? Or, a more recent example, is islam about killing innocent americans, just because some terrorists call themselves islamists? How is that relevant?

Most present-day communists does not believe in killing, they do believe in democracy (often "more" than liberals et al) and they do absolutley not consider soviet russia as an example of a communist state (more likely the Star Trek universe :). Those that use soviet russia as an example of communism tend to confuse communism with the way soviet tried to reach the communist utopia - through dictatorship and force, and they often tend to have an agenda that is anti-communist.

Articles about all the horrible things made in soviet, in the name of communism or sentences like "communism has killed 100 million people", as it seemes some people want in this article, does absolutley not belong in an article about *communism*. It would be a mistake resulting in misinformation comparable to blaming christianity for the killings during the crusades, or islam for the terrorist attacks of recently. This article should be about what communism is, communist theory and what communists think/how they reason, not about what some people consider examples of what communism results into. As it is now, as I understand, these matters lies in a separate article, which is the way it should be done - simply because this article is about communism and not totalitarian wrongdoings. - Magnus, 2004-11-11

Good God! someone finally said it exactly right. That is precisley what this is about. I tip my hat to you, sir. -- Yossarian 06:50, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

--> For the record, Magnus, pick up any encyclopedia (MSN Encarta, et. al.) - look up communism, and you'll find documentation of the millions that were swept away in the 20th Century as a result of the implementation of collectivist systems (however you want to label them). Since Marx's teachings are the base inspiration for much of the socialist/communist revolutions of the 20th Century, it is dishonest to dismiss these murders as mere symptoms of dictatorial regimes and not the ideal of communism itself. I can understand why apologists for communism would wish to make this separation, and it is THE common theme within socialistic teachings today, but it is simply dishonest. Res ipsa loquitur - as any lawyer or law student learns as a 1L - the "thing speaks for itself." (DJ 10 November 2004)

--

Where is the mention of the over 100 million people killed in the 20th Century as a result of the failed implementation of Communism's ideals. Why is this an unargued fact of modern-day history, yet it is left out of this article? It's not POV, it is reality. 62 million in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1987, 38 million in China, 2 million in Cambodia, thousands in Cuba and Ethiopia, etc. etc. Why? (DJ November 8 2004)

Because it's not a damn "fact", you idiot. The fact is that a number of people were killed. Just how many people were killed remains an issue of controversy, mostly because the majority of estimates are based on something called the wild guess method. At any rate, the HIGHEST estimates are at 94 million (see previous talk here and in the archives), and it is likely that the real numbers are much lower than that. Just look at your own numbers: Where did you get the 62 million number for the Soviet Union? I've seen people claiming it to be as low as 5 million, and others claiming it to be as high as 20 million (in any case, 62 million is unheard of). This should give you some idea of how HUGE is the margin of error that we're working with here.

And finally, please read the notice at the top of the page: For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and the controversy associated with them), see Communist state. THAT is the article you're looking for. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because that has to do with the fact that most of the countries you list where totalitarian, not communism. Far right *totalitarian* countires in history (for example, nazi-germany during ww-2) does also show examples of genocide. Ie. This article is about communism, not necessarily a totalitarian communist state, or totalitarism in general, for these issues there are other articles. . Magnus 2004-11-11

--> Thanks. I was hoping somebody would set me straight and call me an idiot along the way as well. I always have to be reminded by communist apologists that it wasn't COMMUNISM that killed over 100 million people in the 20th Century, but "far-right" totalitarian regimes. Right. All those righties in Germany, Cuba, and China are the cause of all the problems, not the fact that people have to be murdered in order to transfer ownership of property to the state in collectivist systems. I see. And I also forgot that the Nazi's were capitalists - thanks for reminding me - not the National Socialists Party. Thanks for keeping me on track, all-knowing soothsayer. Keep hope alive that someone will eventually impliment "true communism" and you'll no longer have to attempt to defend the murderous historical facts of a system that is destined for failure on its face. (DJ 10 November 2004)

Yes! You are an idiot. Finally someone has a breakthrough! Quite a revealing self-description I think. If you were in therapy that would be a big step toward better mental health.

The Nazis were state capitalists, they used the corporations to get enslave Jews and to produce war technology. In return, the corporations made big profits. Not to mention German banks helped steal the wealth of millions of people for Nazi pockets. What, don't believe me? Let's listen in our good pal, Generic Nazi Flunky:

Generic Nazi Flunky: Tell you vat. You make us some money...enslave a few million Jews say...rob them maybe?...And we look zee other vay! Lots of money for al the good little collaborators! You bankers and industrialists...ve'll take good care of you guys. Ve love you guys!

So, obviously, they weren't socialists...I think...hmm...let's ask Adolph himself! He'll be able to answer this puzzling conundrum.

Hitler: Huzzah for socialism! Even if I and all my suporters do hate that gosh darn Marx with all my being for being JEWISH! Oh! And then let's massacre them Jews! That's VERY socialist!

Go out and read a book. Or is Rush Limbaugh more your taste? -- Yossarian 06:50, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

--> Denial. Look, I understand that you're a socialist...and somewhat of a communism apologist, but the "thing speaks for itself." I'm sorry. This isn't me vs. you. It's reality. The Nazi's were racist, nationalistic socialists, but they were still socialists. The Nazi Party was the German National Socialist Workers Party, a left-wing movement. Because the wicked crimes of Hitler's regime reflect poorly on socialism itself, there is constant revisionism and denial of the association between Germany's Nazis and the ideal of socialism itself, and I can understand it, but to deny this fact is mere dishonesty. We're not the first to go back and forth on the subject, and we won't be the last. Hitler (as promised during the run-up) nationalized the means of production in the late 30s and early 40s...and also implemented vast central economic planning which was kept afloat by constant war. The economy boomed as Germany's war machine hummed along.

An April 2001 poll conducted by Der Spiegel (partner of NY Times in Germany) found that a full 46% of 1000 Germans polled believed that Hitler's Nazi Party had "good ideas" relating to the implementation of socialist economic policies that "put the common man to work." This is no doubt based on the reputation of the "pre-war" Nazi Party (1933-1939), which found much popularity in Germany for its push for economic reforms (socialism). After the war, NOBODY wanted to be associated with the word Nazi. But to deny the pre-war Nazi platform (socialism) is simply not being honest to yourself. Please see the following: Reich Food Estate, Wehrwirtschaft, the Reichmarks (and forced inflation), Goering’s Four Year Plan, Reich Economic Chamber....etc....(side note: June 22, 1938 - Office of the Four Year Plan institutes "guaranteed employment" by conscripted labor).

The Nazi Party, all throughout the 30's, often used the word "Jewish" as a synomym for "capitalist." A favorite phrase on official material was "people before profits."

It's all a matter of history.

(DJ 12 November 2004)

So if, as an example, Bill Clinton, tried to implement a form of universal healthcare in the United States, does that make him a socialist? What about FDR, who made several programs that might be considered "socialistic"?

The problem with your reasoning (as I see it) is that you take a few things the Nazis did that were "socialistic" (if at all...the left does not have a monopoly on any of these policies...being left-wing or using so called "left-wing" ideas doesn't make you a socialist) in nature, and assume that makes them socialists. Even Hitler himself made comments to the contrary of your idea. In Mein Kampf, Hitler describes how they would laugh at the idea that they were some kind of labour party. He even said they purposely took the colour red as the official Nazi colour to confuse the electorate (and enrage the communists) into believing they had workers rights in mind. Nationalism and Socialism are largely antonyms anyway. A true socialist is in it for the well being of the people, whomever they might be...Jewish or not. Nationalism in the extreme that Hitler used it (and to the level that it refered to in the Nazi party name), is a total regress of the goals of ANY socialist. It's difficult to label Hitler as left or right. In fact, labeling him as EITHER is very misleading. Yes he used left-wing rhetoric and policies (many of which where abandonded after the purging of the "real" socialists in the party, who actually wanted those reforms...see Night of the Long Knives or Rohm), but he also used right-wing rhetoric and policies. Should I call Hitler a Republican then? So how does Hitler reflect badly on socialism? Even if he were a socialist, why would that be indicative of any other socialist? It's like saying all Republicans are racist because Pat Buchanan is (even if he's a former Republican).

Nazis were also very militaristic, which is very incongruous with socialism (and don't say the Soviet Union was a militaristic "socialist" state. They weren't real socialists either). If a socialist uses tonnes of money on the military, he would definately be forgetting about his base, now wouldn't he?

Calling Hitler a socialist is like calling the BNP party of Britain socialist. They have a few left policies (economically mostly), but I'm sure one of them would beat the crap out of either of us if we called one of them one. They just don't have the socialist name. If Hitler had simply called his party the "German Nationalist Party" then we wouldn't be having this discussion. It wouldn't be an issue. But he didn't. He adopted a name that would mislead the populace and adopt a few left wing things. And even if Hitler did believe in some strange way he was a socialist, he still wouldn't be, just as just because Stalin believed he was one, doesn't mean he was one.

The issue of calling the Nazis socialists is an old propaganda device. And an effective one. It's very easy to say "Well, my opponent is a self described socialist...and so were the Nazis." It's a tactic to blame the Holocaust on socialism. It's like calling George W. Bush "Hitler" because he's for a strong military and right-wing socially. Or saying Ghandi was like Stalin because he was left-wing and believed in "resistance". Or even calling Arnold Schwarzenegger "Hitler" because he's an Austrian politician. It's misleading. Pure and simple.

To condense: Hitler wasn't a socialist because he used a few left-wing policies and rhetoric that were largely abandoned anyway. That doesn't make ANYBODY a socialist. There are no "ideologies" in a genocide. Only victims.

(I assume you've at least read a little Marx...because if not, then you have no right to make any assumptions or accusations about socialists).

So yeah. It's all a matter of "history".

Anyway, no, it's not me vs. you (unless you'd like it to be...I'm totally for challenging you to a Zell Miller like duel at dawn if you want). So don't call me a communist apologist. That's downright offensive. If you've read anythging I've said about Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao, you'd know that. I rate them at about the same level as I do Hitler...maybe even more so. So don't assume that I'm some sort of anti-revisionist Stalinist. The communist regimes of the twentieth century were (and are) largely repugnant. I'm really trying more to defend the theory, not the people (even if I do think that that theory is very flawed). The attacks on communism "the theory" (which is the core of the issue here) are really things that have to do with so called Communist states. Not the theory itself. Marx is rolling in his grave from those that would call themselves "communists". So don't assume what you don't know. Tommy Douglas is my hero, not some Russian dictator.

PS: Yes. Conscripted labour. Take that phrase apart. CONSCRIPTED labour.

PPS: Talk:Socialism/Socialism_and_Nazism

-- Yossarian

---

All this stuff about the use of force is POV. Only the article on communism is being filled with this sort of stuff. I'm going to go and add some stuff about the "crimes of capitalism" to Capitalism and see how long it lasts. That will nicely expose the duplicity of the people who are trying to impose the POV that communism is the devil incarnate. Shorne 00:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, we are tools of the giant capitalist agenda -- or perhaps we simply understand what NPOV means far better than you.

So saying that communism involves the use of force is NPOV but saying that capitalism involves the use of force is "bullshit propaganda"? You've got to be kidding me. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do whatever bullshit propagandistic changes you'd like in the capitalism article -- I'm sure the good people there will revert them. On my part I'm gonna be removing propaganda from this articles on *my* watchlist -- your sentence "as with all others in today's world" remains a blatant piece of meaningless newspeak. All others what? I'm sure that *communistic* theory believes that are societies are founded on violence, but if you don't see that portraying the communist view of society as FACT is espousing YOUR point of view, then you are simply hopeless. Gandhi's theories also espoused violence the same way Lenin's did? Really? Are you gonna back that up with facts the implied claim that all political theories about societal reformation are equally founded on violence?

Aren't they? Do police forces not exist? Armies? Was capitalism instituted over tea and macaroons? Shorne 01:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Police forces in free nations exist to *prevent* violence, not to cause it. In peaceful nations, armies likewise exist only to defend -- unlike the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, unlike the murders at Tienamen square, all of them done in defense of communism.

This has got to be another example of your humour, but at least it is another POV. This is not to say that I don't agree with you to some extent, but clearly police are hired to use violence (when "necessary," but, again, the "necessity" is a POV with which not everyone would necessarily agree) -- in the arrest of suspects, for example, in the "control" of crowds, and in situations that are or resemble both instances they have clearly, at times, initiated violence. You can't argue with your tautology "[i]n peaceful nations, armies... exist only to defend," but it's worth noting the invasions of Grenada and Vietnam, for example, done in defense of capitalism. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or the invasions by the US of Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Zaïre, the Soviet Union, the Philippines—need I go on?

I could point out that a great many communists condemn every one of the acts that you cited and that many would state that the murders at Tian'anmen Square (note spelling) were the act of a capitalist régime. But I might as well say it to a brick wall, for all the good it will do to stop this J-Edgar-Hooverite game of red-baiting. Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could also point whatever condemnations you'd like -- the point is that Marxism-Leninism has *violent revolution* as a part of its ideological core, and it expressly and intentionally puts no barriers on the right of the state to use violence to achieve its purposes. Liberal democracies do put very many barriers on the right of the state to use violence. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism has *violent revolution* at its core. Look at the US and France, just to name two examples.

Marxism-Leninism also has violent revolution at its core. You're quite right; no argument there. Why? Mao: "We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." If capitalism will lay down its weapons of mass destruction and politely hand power over to the communists, maybe no war will be needed. Shorne 02:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it's only communists who see the whole world division as between communism (or "socialism") and capitalism. It's only communists who treat capitalism as a *political* system, rather than an economical one. AND THAT'S BLATANT POV. Capitalism has "violent revolution" at its core? Since I believe it has no ideological core, that's only the communists belief about what capitalism entails, unlike the core of Marxism-Leninism which is accepted by *all*. Communists may say that the French and American revolutions were about the installment of capitalist governments, but the French and Americans themselves might say that those were revolutions about political freedoms instead. And you still don't get it: You keep on treating economical and political systems as if they were one and the same: namely the *communist* POV which you are trying to push on the rest of us. BUT UNLIKE MARXISM-LENINISM, CAPITALISM ISN'T UNIFIED BY ANY *ONE* POLITICAL THEORY. It only means the existence of private property and nothing more than that.

And in most of eastern Europe, the capitalistic-democratic revolts at the end of the Cold war were peaceful btw, with the exception of Romania. Aris Katsaris 19:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Liberal democracy doesn't espouse violent suppression of dissidents, no matter how you would like it to. Aris Katsaris 01:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nor does communism espouse purges and famines, however much you would like it to. Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In its Marxist-Leninist form it very definitely espouses violence against the "counter-revolutionary" forces. And communist ideology very definitely espouses the *right* of the state to do whatever it feels is necessary for the good of the "Revolution". Communism espouses violent overthrow and violent reform of society, even as much as 19th century slavery espoused the right to use whippings to keep black slaves under control. Were the purges the *point*? No, they were simply the proscribed method. Aris Katsaris 02:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prove it. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quote from Lenin. "It is impossible to remain loyal to Marxism, to the Revolution, without treating insurrection as an art." Quotes from Mao. "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the purges? It's about revolution. Shorne 19:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No offense but with "Revolution" don't communists mean the whole process of transforming the society under their system, not just the brief period of war? Communists say for example "enemies of the Cuban Revolution" and by that they mean regime.

This demand, "Prove it", goes to the essence of the problem I and others are having with you, Shorne. We can and have proved it with respect to a number of issues. You quarrel with The Black Book of Communism, but even some critics of the sweeping generalizations that Stéphane Courtois makes in his introduction admit that the section on the Soviet Union written by Nicolas Werth is generally well researched and reliable, see the review of the book in The Journal of American History Review - Journal of American History. Terror and the use of force to gain and maintain power was a declared policy of the Soviet Union. This is amply documented in great detail in Werth's chapters on the Soviet Union. We can legitimately search for ways to attribute this information to critics; even include properly attributed denials, but the mass of information with respect to use of force more than proves it, as you put it. Although what it proves for Wikipedia purposes it that the question of use of force, which the Soviet leaders themselves referred to as terror definitely belongs in the article. Fred Bauder 13:48, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've already smashed your Black Book of Bullshit to smithereens. Users are welcome to look over the shards at Talk:Communism, Talk:Communist state, and Talk:The Black Book of Communism. I'm not going to answer the moronic comment about terror as "a declared policy of the Soviet Union" made by someone who has proved that he doesn't listen to a goddam thing that he doesn't like to hear; I have better things to do with my time. Shorne 19:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism is about selling and buying within the system, not about violent revolution as Marxism-Leninism ~has been in theory and practice. And unlike the practice of communism, almost all modern capitalistic societies allow people to declare themselves adherents of communism without fear of death, imprisonment or exile. Aris Katsaris 00:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Black Panthers? COINTELPRO? McCarthy? Chile? Brazil? Greece? Shorne 01:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is your objection to McCarthy? If you object to destroying lives by innuendo and without due process, I agree, but if it is about his state goals of rooting out communist party members and fellow travelers, remember these were taking their marching orders from the Soviet state. The question becomes does freedom of speech extend to threatening speech? Is there a right to end the free and multiparty electoral system with just one election? Sufferage is not a mechanism to create a self-justifying morality, when you get in the secrecy of the voting booth, you can still wrong others. --Silverback 12:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, *sure* in capitalistic dictatorships there's as much violence as in communistic dictatorships. Which is very different from just saying "capitalism" as if it's enough. In capitalistic democracies there's not. In the last 30 years since the junta fell in Greece, the greatest amount of political violence was from the murderous terrorism of a communist-ideology group. Not from its still going strong "capitalism". Aris Katsaris 01:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for labelling the United States (Black Panthers, COINTELPRO, McCarthy, and the ringleader in the other three cases) a "capitalistic dictatorship". Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am in no particular interest to play your beloved games of wordage. USA under McCarthy was horrible, but even then it didn't reach the levels of political suppression that even the *nicest and mildest* communist regime ever had. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that this is nothing but POV. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You just go right ahead, but don't expect me to be over there reverting you. My quarrel is not with communism, but with killing people and then trying to lie out of it. Fred Bauder 00:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Who is guilty of that, pray? Shorne 00:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer, Fred Bauder. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Police forces in free nations exist to *prevent* violence, not to cause it." "Liberal democracy doesn't espouse violent suppression of dissidents". Oh really? Maybe you'd like to watch this video [1] (Portland A22) and explain to me what's going on there, for I must have completely misunderstood. - pir 01:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Download a 75MB video? Not likely, no broadband connection is mine. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't watch it. You might get pepper spray in your eyes. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brief description of the video: large demo against Bush by all kinds of people, mostly liberals, religious pacifists, ecologists and anarchists. Lots of elderly people, families with kids, students. No violence from portesters at all, no material that could be used for violence to be seen either (not with the demonstrators at least, the coppers are fully armed). At some point the police (in full riot gear) start charging into the demo, pepper spraying, beating people with batons, shooting tear gas and rubber bullets, arresting people. If you don't want to watch the video have a look at these pics [2] of a fat copper having fun mashing up a defenceless woman. They even managed to pepper spray infants together with their parents [3]. Oh, I know, you'll think it's all the work of "a few rotten apples". But look at how the city authorities reacted [4]. In practice, the police are pretty much above the law, and that is ultimately the reason why the "rotten apples" do what they do. Now ask yourself: why are the police not democratically accountable? - pir 13:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Police are not accountable because they are part of the state, which is why you also don't want the state running the economy or health care system. Police have a state granted monopoly on the use of force domestically and they have been allowed to unionize to exploit that monopoly. A drug war that overburdens the system has justified an increase in the quantity of the police and the stressed system resorts to more short cuts (around rights) and excesses. The size of the police force along with rhetoricly magnified dangers (like drugs) give the police a strong lobby, bolstered by increased by public support, in state legislatures for special legal privledges and protections. We needn't single out the police, the courts are just as lawless. For the ultimate unaccountable and lawless state, just look at the UN. That said, your description of the video doesn't say why the protesters were attacked. What I've noticed about the left, is that they often think protesters shouting mindless angry chants in places where their presence is disruptive to the normal uses of those places, is a form of democracy. If it is, it is hardly a deliberative body and an even less accurate assessment of the will of the people than a poll or election.--Silverback 12:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of suppression, may I point out that the United States and the United Kingdom, in evident concert with Switzerland, Italy, France, and perhaps other nations, last week seized all the servers of Indymedia, which made that video available? Indymedia still has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Lovely illustration of capitalist-style "freedom of speech". Shorne 02:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I lived under a mild communist regime, now I live in a democratic and capitalist state and I have to say that whatever objections may be raised against "bourgeois democracy", there is a HUGE difference in freedom of speech between the two. I think a good test for the presence of democracy is answering this question: can you publicly say that your country is not democratic and you won't be censored, arrested and/or fired at work?

I think there is some chance of all of them, but while the second is remote, and the first is somewhat remote, the third is less remote. Statements against the government at work, depending on their character, may possibly get you fired, depending on who your employer is, what your boss is like, what have you, and particularly considering that, in the U.S. at least, "at-will" employment is the general scenario. However, as this would the action of a probably private employer rather than government action, it may well be, at most, peripheral to the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But then you can sue the private employer, can't you? Boraczek 13:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think it would be unlikely in most cases that such a suit would be successful; it would certainly be difficult at best under an "at-will" employment regime, and, outside of tenured professors (and there are examples in the United States of actions taken and attempted against them for such things), it would be difficult to sustain the suit in almost any situation as political dissidents are hardly a protected class, and in any case it could be argued by the employer that the termination was "for cause." --Daniel C. Boyer 14:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The answer valid for "bourgeois democratic" states is "yes, you can", the answer valid for communist states is "no, you can't". This really makes a difference. And this also shows that there is a difference between the ranges of using force by communist states and of using force by democratic states. Boraczek 13:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So the British Empire didn't mind the Indians trying to show the world that they were being suppressed? Oh, i forgot, they beat them and shot random demonstrants. [[User:Dasch|Dasch99 11:20, 15 November 2004 (CET)

Well, yes, I'd have to agree that police are supposed to be there to keep people safe, but there are real a-holes in any profession. Perhaps the difference is in what the police are officiall and unofficially ordered to do by their superiors. And I think that that has a lot to with which administration is in power. In any case, let's keep in mind that any form of government can fall prey to corruption. Additionally, I would like to add that subtlety is the key when trying to convince someone. You can't just cram an idea down someone's throat -- they'll just vomit it back up all over you. It's better to present a buffet of ideas and opinions and let people choose what seems the most truthful. And if you make your case clearly, concisely, and honestly, they'll probably side with you. -- Tim McCormack 02:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC) Disclaimer: I don't actually have much of an opinion at all about communism in general.

Thanks for taking a balanced view. Indeed, your words are precisely what I said in my change: communism, like other systems of government today, does use force. I'm going to restore the change now, since there seems to be little genuine dispute about it. Shorne 02:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no, that conclusion isn't possible from what was stated above. What Tim said is that any government can fall prey to corruption - but that's a failing of the human element, not an inherent part of the system. The argument regarding communism is that communist governments used force as their modus operandi in dealing with dissidents. While it is true that some "capitalist" governments have engaged in repression, this is not a feature of the system. Capitalism as an economic philosophy (I recommend consulting the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo for a primer) does not call for nor rely upon force to achieve its ends. Quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, capitalism does not define a system of government. While it is true that capitalism is most often found with liberal democracies, this is more reflective of free systems finding each other than a categorical imperative. Opposed to this, we have the writings of Lenin, who believed absolutely in force, and the examples of communist regimes around the world. I am not familiar with any communist regime that has permitted real, open, criticism and dissent while remaining communist. I am familiar, however, with the methods by which the Soviet Union, North Korea, the People's Republic of China, and East Germany, to name a few, kept themselves in power without the open consent of the citizenry. While it can be argued that the United States has taken a disturbing turn towards authoritarianism, this reflects the personality of President Bush and his administration, and is notably at odds with the policies of his predecessor, which would seem to indicate that the use of force against ones own citizeny (which is not the same as the use of force abroad) is not part and parcel with democratic capitalism. Mackensen 04:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my comments. I am not supporting any of the viewpoints presented here; I am merely presenting an alternative view of the origins of violence in a system. What I am saying is that no known system of government is inherently violent. Whether certain ones are more prone to violence is a completely different matter, and one that is (quite possibly) impossible to argue logically or on a factual basis. The only thing that can be stated with a firm backing is that certain governments have had certain reputations. Beyond this there is always a question of who ordered what and how the information has been distorted. No more, no less. Besides, whether police brutality in Portland is a direct consequence of the capitalist system has nearly no relevance to an article on the principles and history of communism. I encourage all parties to focus on the goal of this article: to present a "fair and balanced" view of a concept from both ideological and historical standpoints. If people are having a difficult time keeping the two separate (which, admittedly, is easier said than done), then perhaps a splitting of the article is called for, into said divisions. My hands are tired, so I'm going to stop writing now. -- Tim McCormack 18:25, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who won't face reality. Capitalism is just as dependent upon force as any other social system. Capitalism requires police, armies, security guards, and other institutions that protect the interest of the bourgeoisie. Socialism requires police and the like that protect the interest of the proletariat. The only difference is that socialism is honest about it: it speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Capitalism never admits to being the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

So-called "Socialism" has never been honest about being the dictatorship of the Communist Party elite. Do you think North Korea is likewise a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as opposed to a dictatorship of the "Dear Leader"? But you are right in one thing -- so-called "socialism" *admits* to being a dictatorship atleast, while capitalism doesn't. That's why it's not a violation of NPOV to name it those countries dictatorships that are dependent on force -- because both their supporters and their opponents do believe them to be such: unlike what we believe about liberal democracies. Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it's not a dictatorship of the proletariat, it's not socialism, now, is it? It really takes a chisel to get through some skulls! Shorne 19:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, how *nice* a circular definition. Before now "socialism" was supposedly honest about being a "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- therefore "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a *descriptor* of what "socialism" was, since otherwise your claims of "honesty" wouldn't be meaningful. Now however "dictatorship of the proletatiat" is not a self-description of the "socialist regimes", but rather a definition of them instead. Very well, in that case there never existed a single "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Soviet Union or Eastern Europe, and you can't therefore claim it was "honest" about anything. Aris Katsaris 19:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything. You're the one who is distorting matters.

The Soviet Union had a dictatorship of the proletariat many long years ago. It got transformed into a vile and oppressive Brezhnevite bureaucracy that you are trying to sell as the epitome of socialism. Setting up your red straw man so that you can knock him down. I'm not going to argue with you; you're much too ill informed. Shorne 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem to confuse the theory with the reality. In theory, communist governments should protect the interest of the proletariat. In practice, however, they protected the interest of the political bureaucracy, as Milovan Djilas called it, that is, communist party officials. And, as sociological analyses show, workers are the social category which is most deprived of power in communist states. So, implemented communism reveals a high level of hypocrisy. Boraczek 13:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

End of argument from me until you've done some reading and some thinking. I don't have time for this nonsense. Shorne 05:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that's the rudest reply I've ever gotten on these pages. I would ask that you treat those of us who don't agree with you with some measure of respect. Your comment about capitalism needing police, armies, and security could just as easily be addressing sovereign states in general, and as such I won't dispute it. I will, however, dispute most strongly your attempt to equate such structures in "capitalist" states with those in communist states. Now, it is true that, like in any system, there are abuses/controversial actions, some of them horrible. To cite obvious examples: the WTO riots in Seattle, the American invasion of Iraq. However, these were also heavily discussed in the news media at the time, and the government has been highly criticized for its action from many quarters. It is entirely possible that the current administration will be turned out because of citizen dissatisfaction. For a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there's a remarkable amount of dissent, and not all of it from the middle class. Now, you who've told me to read and think, tell me what would happen if people publicly criticized a communist government in the same position. Mackensen 06:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dispute to the idea that violence and repression are not an in-built feature of capitalism. Free-market capitalism causes what is usually called the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, which in turn causes social conflict. The way to deal with these social conflicts is (at least when other methods fail) by force, usually the police force. I'm not just talking about excesses here, I'm also talking about things like Clinton's "three strikes and you're out". The main role of the police force in capitalist societies is to maintain property relations. Most Western capitalist states try to alleviate social conflict by re-distribution of wealth and other state intervention into the market, but with the advent of neo-liberalism that's pretty much over. You can see it more clearly for example in Latin American capitalist countries, where police repression is a lot harsher (and I'm talking about the current "democratic" states, not the Pinochet-style dictatorships) than in Western countries (although this is not reported much - just look up the events around the Brukman factory in Argentina for example). I'm just talking about internal repression here, the violence used by capitalist states to maintain access to strategicially important resources like Middle Eastern oil is another aspect. Oh - and just for your information, the US imprisons a higher percentage of the population at this point than the USSR under Stalin. - pir 11:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, Stalin simply killed them instead. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the "land of the free" is the world's biggest prison state, with the possible exception of Rwanda during the recent war there, and has been for several decades. US imprisonment of Blacks greatly exceeds that of South Africa under apartheid. Shorne 12:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We have a different definition of what constitutes a "prison state". For me a prison state is a state which you are not allowed to leave. Which makes the communist bloc, the largest group of prison states that there ever existed. Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still, prisons of the US seem to be luxurious hotels when compared with prisons and gulags of the USSR. Let's take the simpliest statistics. Few people die in the prisons of the US, while the estimate of the number of people who died in inhuman conditions in Soviet gulags is 12 million. Your argument is just based on obliterating the difference of degree. A pinch on a cheek can be regarded as an act of violence and burrning a man alive is an act of violence. We say "in the USSR so many people were burnt alive" and you answer "but in the US an even higher number of people were pinched on a cheek, so the US is as violent a state as the USSR". Boraczek 14:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In addition, please don't forget that the establishment of capitalist societies is usually just as violent as the establishment of (allegedly) communist/socialist societies. The bourgeois French Revolution was a pretty bloody business (guillotine, the Terror etc.) ; the colonisation of North American involved slaughtering a lot of native Americans, slavery was an important factor in developing the US economy, to give just two examples. - pir 12:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Astute comments by Pir and Shone. I couldn't have said it better myself. 172 12:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice strawman you've got there. The colonization of North America reminds me more of a mercantilist economic system working in tandem with a monarchy. Consider that the American Revolution, which was arguably a revolution by liberal capitalists against a monarchy, only turned violent when the monarchy attempted to crush dissent. As for the French Revolution, I'm not sure how you're pinning that one on capitalists. Before you go flinging around random examples of brutality in history, I think you owe it to all of us engaged in the debate to explain how they are relevant. Mackensen 14:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only point I'm trying to make here (and I think it's quite a trivial point) is the following: if you want to install a radically new economic/social/political system and abolish the existing one, you usually need to use large-scale violence because there will be resistance. And once such a system is installed, it needs to crush internal dissent when it becomes strong enough to actually be a threat. I am not arguing in favour of (or against) communism, or capitalism, or the American Revolution here. I'm just saying that the use of violence is an "inbuilt feature". Regarding "the American Revolution, which was arguably a revolution by liberal capitalists against a monarchy, only turned violent when the monarchy attempted to crush dissent", I feel that fully supports my point.

No, I would disagree. The violence did indeed begin because one system conflicted with another. However, the violence also ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The United States did not need to rely upon wholesale terrorizing of its citizens to maintain its position. Compare this to communist countries, which have always maintained a large and powerful secret police to control their citizens. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For communism it's much easier to show that violence is an inbuilt feature, because you had a have learned men with beards sit down and work out how to achieve this, and write it down. With capitalism, people used violence without writing down all their justifications and thought beforehand. But that doesn't prove it's not an inbuilt feature.

You have yet to prove that capitalism relies on violence towards its citizens to maintain itself. Let's be clear about this. Enforcement of property rights is one thing, mass-jailing or execution of citizens something else altogether. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes let's be clear about it: Stalinist repression was far more brutal and violent. Still, I think it would be inacurrate to say that only few people supported communism in the USSR - a very large proportion of the population in Russia today would be quite happy to go back to the old days. Capitalism is (1) far more firmly installed, therefore it doesn't need such crude tactics to assert itself ; (2) it is a system which is much more resilient and difficult to subvert ; it doesn't require centralised control of all individual citizens, all capitalism needs is centralised control of certain conditions which then in turn control how individuals act. Capitalism selects for those that maintain it and marginalises those who don't follow its logic and those for which it has no use - a very stable system that usually prevents widespread dissent.

Still as soon as you start to undermine the framework on which capitalism relies, bad things happen to you. People who do this in any serious way have a habit of ending up in jail, or being executed, or otherwise a bullet in their head - maybe it's just bad karma. For example Jeff Luers was branded an ecoterrorist and jailed for 22 years for burning down a couple of SUVs - let's compare that to Kenneth Lay who caused far bigger material damage. See also Sacco and Vanzetti, Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, some of whom were without doubt miscarriages of justice, and Malcolm X where the FBI clearly had a big influence on the conditions that led to his death. All of these are about maintainig existing property relations of capitalist society in a more determined way. (and yes - the Gulag was worse)

What happens when capitalism gets into real trouble and there is large-scale dissent? Well, you could for example read the following two sections of the article about Nationsocialism to find an answer. - pir 20:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my argument that free-market capitalism causes ever increasing social inequality, which in turn causes social conflict. The tool to deal with these social conflicts is by force, usually the police force, whose role is to maintain property relations. - pir 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This discussion seems very polarized. Perhaps progress could be made if both sides concede some of the points that the other is making. On the one side, it seems clear to me that there have historically been differences of degree in the amount of state-internal violence used within states that claimed to be committed to communism and states that are committed to capitalism. Whether these differences are to be explained in terms of differences between these two systems of thought or are better explained by other causes is a different question -- perhaps pir and Shorne can agree that there were such differences of degree? On the other side, it also seems clear to me that capitalism is based on upholding extensive property rights by violence and the threat thereof. While it may be true that every state needs a police, the police might have a lot less to do if it didn't have to uphold property rights as defined in capitalist states. One may find such extensive property rights a good or a bad idea, and one may find them such a good idea that one agrees they should be upheld using violence, but the same is of course also true about communism -- one may find it such a good idea that one agrees that it should be brought about or defended using violence. Perhaps the others can agree that this is indeed violence inherent in the system? Fpahl 15:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree. I am certainly no Stalinist apologist. I do think there are differences in the amount of internal repression. However, I think the main reason for that are the historical circumstances rather any inherent noble features of capitalism. - pir 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all we've got to work with are historical circumstances. And, historically, I doubt very much that you could find a communist government that stayed in power with the open and willful consent of those governed. Mackensen 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point, Fpahl, is that this stuff is POV. I've never denied that countries pursuing communism have to make use of violence for certain purposes. I do object to the single-minded inclusion of this stuff in an article on communism as if it were 1) the very essence of communism; 2) not also characteristic of capitalism. Capitalism had by far the most blood on its hands in the twentieth century, and I can prove it. Shorne 19:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We can insert characteristics of communism which are admitted by all to occur. We can't insert characteristics of capitalism that ONLY communists believe are true without adding the qualifier that it's communists that believe capitalist societies to also work so-and-so. We can't say "as with all others in today's world" as if it was fact, rather than communist belief. We can say however "which the communists believe is the case with all other societies in today's world also". See the difference between NPOV and non-NPOV? YOU, SHORNE, ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE ARTICLE'S VOICE BE IDENTICAL TO *YOUR* VOICE. Aris Katsaris 19:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then by all means do prove it. Of course, you're going to have to prove that it was inherent to the functioning of capitalism that it happened. Also, I'd like to remind you that we're speaking of internal repression. Imperialism, which can and does occur without capitalism, does not qualify as internal repression. Mackensen 19:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Civil liberties

Shorne, you write:

"I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who won't face reality. Capitalism is just as dependent upon force as any other social system. Capitalism requires police, armies, security guards, and other institutions that protect the interest of the bourgeoisie. Socialism requires police and the like that protect the interest of the proletariat. The only difference is that socialism is honest about it: it speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Capitalism never admits to being the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

The possession of an unlicensed mimeograph machine was a crime, as was possession of a book not published by the state, a samizdat. People who tried to escape the country were shot. Organizing a political party was a crime. Simply expressing your opinion in public was dangerous. We are talking about a whole different level of control, in fact, about a totalitarian state. Why don't free societies need this tight level of control. The simple answer is that the majority of the people support the government; the obverse: why couldn't a socialist country hold free elections? Because they were likely to lose. When the threat of force was removed the regimes fell. Fred Bauder 19:27, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

But you fail to recognize the role that force plays or may play in marshaling this support. Would the regime of the U.S. survive if the "threat of force" (the army, navy, police forces &c.) was removed? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And the Yankee puppet régimes all around the world would fall like a rock if the "threat of force" were removed. Shorne 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yankee puppet régimes? I'd think you'd find that in most "capitalist" regimes (which must include the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan) are not "Yankee" puppets. More to the point, citizens in those countries agree that the rule of law is a good thing, and they often strive to uphold it. "Threat of force" strikes me as an unduly harsh turn of phrase to describe a liberal democratic capitalist regime (I'd like to note that I regard the use of the word "capitalist" as somewhat misleading in this debate). Mackensen 02:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What do you imagine the police, the army &c. are if not a "threat of force"? You may be unused to seeing it characterised this way, but I don't imagine there can be any dispute about it. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It strikes me as an odd way to characterize it. The vast majority of people in so-called "capitalist" countries are quite happy that property rights are upheld. Moreover, those people are allowed to express their dissent. Consider all the newspaper columnists who regularly attack the government.

What newspaper columnist ever says the government should be overthrown, or the government should be replaced with a "communist" regime, or the like? Get serious. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In a communist country they'd have been jailed. Call it "threat of force" if you like, but there's a difference of degree of several orders of magnitude. Mackensen 16:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What makes you think that the vast majority of people in so-called "communist" countries were not quite happy to have socialist rights upheld? Plenty of people in Russia today aren't so keen on the "protection"—imposition might be a better word—of "property rights". Shorne 19:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did live in a so-called communist country, Shorne. And frankly, I suspect you don't know much about real life in a so-called communist country. If it is reasonable to treat all communist states as belonging to one category. Because political systems in communist states were differentiated, ranging from a totalitarian regime based on extreme terror to a mild authoritarian regime.

If you had lived in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist period, Shorne, you, with your noncomformism, idealism and zeal, would have been a 100% candidate for imprisonment in a gulag. And maybe you would die there, forgotten by the world. But you live in another country and you can try to spread your extremist opinions here. This really makes a difference, even if you're not able to appreciate it.

And by the way, it's all the more difficult to be happy in Russia, because the country is totally economically and morally devastated by the 70 years of communist rule. Boraczek 14:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For that matter, what proof do you have that "[t]he vast majority of people in so-called 'capitalist' countries are quite happy that property rights are upheld"? Seems dubious to me. How many Mexicans are delighted with capitalism? How many Nigerians? Shorne 00:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, open your eyes and try to find any real dissent in the mainstream Western media. You won't find any to speak of, precisely because those media are fully controlled by corporate interests (just a handful of corporations dominate the newspapers, magazines, TV, and radio stations in a country like the UK or the US), which limit the range of acceptable political discussion. "Left" is something like Bill Clinton or Tony Blair—people who by any meaningful standard are definitely on the right. Anything farther to the left is marginalised, ignored, or slandered. And even the facts don't get reported correctly or adequately. Witness that case of police brutality in the streets of Portland, Oregon, which someone said got suppressed by the mainstream media and exposed only by those outlets that are disparagingly called "alternative"—a very telling term in itself.

A journalist who writes anything truly critical of the status quo in a capitalist society may not be gaoled. He'll just be fired and blackballed.

In Marxist terms, it's a question of the production relations. Privately owned media become bourgeois. You don't see it that way because you're looking through blue-tinted glasses. Shorne 19:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, the irony - going on about the evils of the bourgeois privately-owned media on ... a privately-owned website. Even better, if someone ever tried to delete your comments from talk pages, I and the other admins will restore the comments and come down hard on whoever did it, even after you yourself have moved on. But indeed, the corporate influence on the media, including the web which is controlled by a handful of ISPs btw, is just one more reason not to use any of it as source for an encyclopedia that aspires to be authoritative. Thousands of books have been published on communism, ranging across the entire spectrum of politics, and what do we have referenced here? Just two, and not even important ones. Stan 20:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting the bias in Wikipedia. In fact, no one has yet come down at all on such obviously destructive people as User:VeryVerily, and my requests for mediation and arbitration have gone ignored up to now. Any left-winger doing what he does would have been expelled long ago. Shorne 20:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually 172 has done more than his share of summary reverts, and there are others, but as you can easily see from the arbcom's list of cases, no leftwingers have been banned for being leftwingers. So you can think what you want, but the empirical evidence says otherwise. As for VV and you, I admire the arbcom for not simply quitting WP altogether in disgust - the dozens of reverts and re-reverts (it always takes at least two to have an edit war) make very complicated to figure who did what to who; even to decide to accept the case requires a review of all that, and the arbcom members are volunteer people with jobs, not servants whose time is at your command. But if WP is as hopelessly biased as you seem to suggest, you might as well quit and go do something else more worthwhile, eh? Stan 21:19, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I probably shall. Don't think the thought hasn't crossed my mind. As for 172, I'm sure he can defend himself. Shorne 22:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thought I'd add that what many of you consider "communism" is not been really communism at all. In a society where the upper class owns the working class - that is, the means of production and distribution - capitalism prevails. Call it state capitalism (where a party shares the surplus wealth created by the working class) if you will, but it is NOT communism. - socially_challenged@hotmail.com

Capitalism

I haven't participated in the critique of capitalism above. Simply put, this article is not about capitalism and the methods of control "democratic" states use. I guess the question to pose is: How should the nature of capitalist societies affect the content of this article? I sense there is some sentiment that some of the gory details (as well as broad generalizatons) ought to be omitted as capitalism is just as bad or even worse or have I unjustly stated the case? Fred Bauder 14:07, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be the position of Shorne, pir, and 172, yes. However, I would strongly contest that comparison and I don't think I would be alone in doing so. My position would be that violence/repression is an inherent part of communism and that the evidence from the 20th century combined with an analysis of the writings on Lenin and others justify this position. As for capitalism, it's relevant only as a tu quoque defense. There is no proof that I've seen on these pages that capitalism - which is only an economic system, not also a social system - needs the repression of its citizens in order to function. While there are examples of regimes that possess capitalist economic systems that have engaged in repression, I have yet to see examples that would convince me that this was because of the nature of capitalism, and not of the regime. Mackensen 14:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV generalities alleging that violence is inherent to communism do not belong here. You might as well go to Negro and write "Faeces are an inherent part of Black people, all of whom produce copious amounts in their lifetimes", without saying the same thing about any other population. Shorne 19:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Except that violence against its own population is not an inherent part of capitalism and you've yet to provide evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we have the examples of Stalin's purges, the activities of the Khmer Rouge in the late 70s, and the Cultural Revolution in China. Moreover, we have the examples of the systematic use of secret police and intimidation in communist states (the Stasi in East Germany, the Cheka/KGB in the Soviet Union, to name but a few). Now, to make the point relevant, this intimidation was directed against people who wouldn't get with the program. The program was communism and was overseen by a communist state. As a side note, I find your counter-example in extremely poor taste and unnecessary. Mackensen 19:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whether "violence is inherent to communism" is the subject of many weighty tomes of scholarship; one could write a whole long article just to give a bare summary of what all the philosophers, ethicists, etc, have written on the subject. The real-life examples are circumstantial evidence, but not much more. It would work to attribute; "In capitalist [or Western] nations, there is a widespread belief that violence is inherent to communism, and this belief has a variety of effects on these nations' relationships with communist nations. For instance, this belief played a role in securing public approval for large military expenditures during the Cold War". And then you link to the article where you discuss the philosophical question in such depth that everybody runs away screaming. :-) Stan 06:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But, and though comparisons of degree could be drawn, surely capitalism uses intimidation directed against people who won't get with the program. Is someone who opposes the capitalist system simply allowed to do so to any degree or in any way he wishes? I'm sure that you will start talking about "crime," and this is certainly a colourable and perhaps even a valid point, but it is also arguable that there is a certain point at which capitalism does use intimidation, there have been capitalist regimes that have used secret police (the present-day U.S. with its FBI and Secret Service acting against political dissidents, some of whom are speaking and/or acting against capitalism specifically). To claim otherwise is POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When someone in the US kills or imprisons someone for political activity against the system, it's called punishing traitors. When the Soviet Union tried Nazi collaborators, it was called Stalinist totalitarianism. Shorne 23:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So the kulaks were Nazis then? And the entire upper echelon of the military? And Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Mackensen 00:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Damn right. Many kulaks were indeed Nazis. There can be no denying it. Shorne 00:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, prove it. Cite some sources. Sources that can be verified. Mackensen 01:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Equally POV, I think, is to ignore questions of degree. When one asserts that degree of difference does not matter, one is asserting a moral equivalency. Abuses by the FBI and Secret Service do not compare to the systematic repression that occurred and still does occur in communist regimes worldwide. Mackensen 23:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which "regimes" today are "communist"? You obviously have not even read this article. Shorne 23:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would be able to come up with a definition that would satisfy you. I would regard North Korea and Cuba as being communist, China less so, as she appears to be lurching towards a market economy. Now that we've harped on the minor part of my statement, how about addressing the moral equivalency? Mackensen 00:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that even to address the "moral equivalency" is to say that this article should be POV. If we are serious about NPOV we shouldn't be talking about "moral equivalency," the only people who talk about it being those who believe that as capitalism is morally superior to communism, one has to regard the abuses of capitalism as not being as meaningful as similar abuses of communism. This view of moral equivalency can be characterised insofar as it's relevant to the article, but I think we're getting on thin ice here, as the point of this article shouldn't be to endorse capitalism over communism or vice versa. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's just one step in a blatant campaign to insist on a POV. My point from the beginning, repeated here for those who have brains, is that all this shit is inappropriate in this article. Go talk about violence somewhere else. I'd be shot at dawn if I dared to add to the article "Capitalism" a section called "Crimes of Capitalism" (proving, for example, that 100 million children starve to death every seven years because of capitalist economic priorities) or to say that capitalism uses violent means to protect itself, but people can come here and spread lies about "100 million" people "killed" by communism, even after said lies have been completely refuted many, many times. That's POV, pure and simple. Shorne 00:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm concerned that in a quest for NPOV we're actually being POV. I'm not talking about endorsing capitalism, I'm talking about describing communism as it operated (and in isolated cases, continues to operate). When you talk about "similar" abuses of communism, I have to wonder what any capitalist country has ever done to its populace that could stand at the level of the Great Purge, or the Cultural Revolution.

Wasn't National Socialism in Germany essentially capitalist? --Daniel C. Boyer 12:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. First of all, capitalism is an economic system, not a social system. Capitalism is usually wedded to a liberal democracy these days, but it doesn't have to be. Now, Nazi Germany is considered Fascist, and Fascism's tendency to blur the line between corporate and state is anathema to the concept of free markets. Nazi Germany is usually classed, therefore, as a Fascist dictatorship, which is fairly far from liberal democratic capitalism. Mackensen 16:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What Shorne wants to say is that the organized repression of a state's citizens is the modus operandi the world over, and I don't find that point particularly convincing or provable. Mackensen 00:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Large file warning

Perhaps it is time to archive this file (again)? You'll probably want to delete this section ("Large file warning") once people agree on archival. Tim McCormack 02:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Added Template

I've been trying to get this template going. If anyone disagrees with it, remove it; I stopped caring a while ago. --Oceanhahn 03:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hope I can do something to encourage you, but I must admit that I understand completely. Thanks for the nice template. We won't let anyone ruin it. Shorne 03:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, JFO! It looks great. The Communist Ideology page is still in progress, isn't it? --McCorrection 10:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Communist Ideology page -- and the template for that matter -- are still under construction, yes.

I dont know how much more I have the patience to do, so if you feel you can make it work, go right ahead and add your ideas to the layout in discussion. Dont forget to sign your changes!

Thanks for your continued support. --Oceanhahn 09:00, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a section on the moral superiority of capitalism?

Apologies if this has already been covered, I haven't read the archives, but I always thought the moral superiority of capitalism could be assessed by the value of tolerance. In a capitalist society, people are free to live communally if they choose, most examples are probably religious communities, whereas in existing communist societies, living as a capitalist is a crime. This moral approach has some implications for policy in capitalist societies, in particular, I've always objected to property taxes, since the need to acquire legal tender to pay them, might require those living communally to participate in the markets and contribute to the rest of society against their will. If they don't want to, IMHO, they shouldn't have to, thus my opposition to property taxes. OTOH, perhaps some communal communities would not object to participating in markets and "competing" communally as a commune, much like extended families in some cultures do.

Is there an analogue in communist societies, for how those choosing to live capitalistically could be tolerated and not suppressed?--Silverback 12:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But, apart from whatever possible objections that could be raised to this, it is POV as it is predicated on "tolerance" being a positive value, and others might not see it as a question of "tolerance" or might deny that "tolerance" is a positive value. This POV can be expressed in some article on Wikipedia (probably it is not best put in this one), but it needs to be said that this is a POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps more neutral wording, leaving out "superiority", and just factually examples such as this where capitalism is more tolerant and non-coercive towards communism and letting the reader decide whether tolerance is positive or not?--Silverback 16:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That would be a poor argument for moral superiority. Ownership implies the freedom to share, while the reverse is not true in a communist society because the equitable (or even just equal) distribution of resources requires that they be free to move.--Csmcsm 21:35, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, read up on our NPOV policy. We aren't writing argumentative essays here, ok?AndyL 16:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's also wrong. Monasteries are not communism. Besides, capitalism doesn't allow even that "freedom". How is a poor, homeless person going to establish a commune?

La loi, dans un grand souci d'égalité, interdit aux riches comme aux pauvres de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. —Anatole France

Ignoring for the moment the horrendous POV of this idea, let me suggest an analogy. Feudal society is morally superior to capitalism because it doesn't prohibit people from living capitalistically, however, in capitalist society you are not allowed to force people to work for you and people are not divided into estates (nobility and peasantry, for example). Similarly, slave-ownership society is morally superior to both feudalism and capitalism, because it doesn't prohibit you from living in those ways, but both capitalism and feudalism generally prohibit ownership of people. Need to I speak about the primitive communal society?

If the analogy isn't clear, the point is that capitalism necessarily involves exploitation of "proletariat" by capitalists, making it a less advanced society than communism. In a communist society you lose some freedoms (freedom to be a capitalist), but these freedoms are detrimental to the advanced society (just like freedoms to be a slave-owner or a feudal), so the net effect is positive, as most people gain greater freedom of oppression. Paranoid 10:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I always thought the moral superiority of capitalism could be assessed by the value of tolerance

Capitalism's tolerance for poverty, unemployment, illness etc does not make it morally superior, quite the opposite. AndyL 18:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What -ism doesn't tolerate these? Look at the state sub-saharan Africa and other parts of the 3rd world. Just because you wall off a relatively rich part of the world and don't let the poor in doesn't mean you've done something about poverty. If Orange County went socialist, it could have the one of the lowest poverty rates and best social benefits in the world. If would be a bit selfish of them to keep the exploitation of their rich to themselves when Africa is so needy. Open immigration is kinder to the poor, preferably legal, but mere de facto, as along the US/Mexico border also helps more poor than all the EU combined.--Silverback 19:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've got confused here.The notion of "communsim" encompasses both econmical and social organization. Whereas "capitalism" is an economical term. The discussed issues of "tolerance", "freedoms", etc., are related to social organization. Hence in this respect, communism must be compared with "democracy". But here is a nother pitfall: comunists say that communism is an ultimate democracy. Proceed with your dispute from there. Mikkalai 19:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have some points there, capitalism was not being used in its technical economic sense, but in a way more interchangable with free markets and laisez faire economics. But then markets and capitalism are viewed not as rigorously organized systems imposed from above, but are studied more as "natural" phenomena that occurr when the right conditions of freedom and trust (legally enforced or otherwise) that allow contracts and transactions to take place. Capitalism has also been called the ultimate democracy, where each dollar is a vote that the market behaves in accordance with the "laws" of supply and demand to satisfy. With capitalism your "votes" are meaningful, as long as it is not a single party system (read monopoly). Communists are already familiar with single party systems.--Silverback 21:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually Democracy refers to government by the voting citizenry, not the voting dollars. Along with failing to address the fallacies in your original argument, you're confusing an analogy with the real thing.--Csmcsm 23:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanx, I may also have missed the other fallacies of my original argument, can you point them out to me?--Silverback 23:57, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Certainly - the most fundamental flaw I've already noted in this topic, along with others. Which is that it is not "morally superior" to allow the inequitable distribution of resources. Tolerace does not imply goodness - for instance, the tolerance of infanticide would not normally be regarded as morally superior to intolerance towards the practice.

Whooo, maybe it is a bunny trail, but I have long advocated that the best government would be one that could tolerate and not judge indigenous societies, my favorite example was that a government encountering an isolated Eskimo society, should be able to leave it alone, and not go in and start arresting people for infanticide and truancy. Infanticide of ones own infant, like abortion of ones own feti, or mutiliation of ones own childs genetalia (circumcision), whether one considers them right or wrong, is not something there is a compelling state interest in intervening in. Does the state have to impose its will on every inch of its territory? I have also wondered seriously whether wahabism could be allowed to persist on a reservation.

I don't think you mean inequitable distribution of resources, but rather unequal (correct me if I am wrong). I see no reason to worship the equal sign, no two people were ever created equal (not even identical twins), equal distribution of goods implies inequity. That said, I have disagreed with Federal Reserve policy which is supposed to be economically neutral, but instead manages the money supply so that most of the return from gains in productivity goes to capital rather than labor, because when the returns go to labor it views that as inflationary. There is a lot of catching up for labor to do.--Silverback 03:53, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If we remove your artificial constraints, a tolerant government could also permit unreasoned infanticide within its own citizenry, along with torture or nearly anything else you might consider morally wrong. All I am submitting here is that tolerance does not imply moral goodness, nothing more.

And I meant inequitable. In a capitalist society, citizens are free to utilise resources as selfishly or unselfishly as they desire. In a communist society they are not free to do so, but there is nothing inherently bad in this restriction.--Csmcsm 04:31, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nor is there anything inherantly good or equitable about an unselfish utilization of resources and there is no demonstration or proof that a communist society is any more likely to achieve such utilization by restricting freedom. The command and control argument neglects checks and balances on power, a principle, however noble, is not enough to restrain a brute. It is tough enough to restrain a brute, when there is a societal mechanism and cultural consensus in place.--Silverback 11:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The other issue, also raised by others, questions your premise that one can opt-out of capitalism. The only way to opt-out of capitalism is to opt-in, which is a contradiction. If one does not possess material worth in the capitalist sense eg. owning land, then no commune would be possible.--Csmcsm 00:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Owning land is a small one time hurdle to overcome. Many communes have done it. It is the property tax that requires continuing participation in the market that I find objectionable, although many communes done, they are perfectly happy to live communally and sell a modicum of goods on the market.--Silverback 03:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then you have your example of communists tolerating capitalists (QED). And if that isn't enough, you haven't answered the allegation that tolerance is morally neutral.--Csmcsm 03:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Touche, you are quite right, the mechanism by which capitalism and communism can co-exist is within freedom, much as is already occurring to some extent in the United States. Although, I still favor elimination of the property tax to make it easier for the more isolationist communists, although, even in the United States the heavy intrusiveness of government would have to be reduced some so that the communists can live in peace.--Silverback 04:35, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we can agree to morally neutral language for the article, that notes that communism and capitalism can tolerate each other and coexist in a free society, the key issue is that the society must be free and not regard either as illegal.--Silverback 05:51, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We absolutely cannot agree to putting one person's cockamamie opinions into this article. Shorne 15:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neither society is free - communists enforce non-ownership, and capitalists enforce ownership. I'm not sure what you intend to add to the article - since we know that tolerance does not imply goodness (my unchallenged point above), then there are no implications for either form of society (your consequent). In any case, the article should contain factual information regarding the term, not derivations from an undeclared moral standpoint.--Csmcsm 10:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What -ism doesn't tolerate these?

socialist systems that provide universal medicare are certainly less tolerant of illness than capitalist systems that don't. Sweden certainly is far less tolerant of poverty than the US or Britain where social programmes have been slashed. Certainly systems that aim to redistribute wealth evenly across society are far less tolerent of inequity than capitalist systems that believe it's ok for the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.

Look at the state sub-saharan Africa and other parts of the 3rd world.

Have you heard of the World Bank and the IMF which have, taking direction from the US, forced developing countries to end social programs and privatise anything that might be state run?

If the country needed the help from IMF, how good a job were they doing managing the resources? I've read a lot of criticism of the IMF and World Bank, mostly that they were really bailing out the bond holders, and the argument was made the the bondholders should have lost their investment so that they would get better at assessing risk. I also read criticism that the large infrastructure projects of questionable value were financed instead of small businesses, and considerable damage was done to the environment. I also read criticism that the economies were forced into fiscal and monetary straight jackets, instead of encouraging growth, often with politically destablizing hardship imposed upon the governments.--Silverback 03:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read up on colonialism and neo-colonialism and the effect of turning what were previously economies based on sustainable agriculture into monocultural, cash crop economies designed to fit the needs of the colonial power in question. Please read some history. AndyL 13:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, silverback, instead of going with your comic book understanding of socialism which seems to come courtesy of the right you should actually read what socialists have to say about socialism and what they have to say about capitalism while you're at it?AndyL 02:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How do you recommend Socialism be assessed, as an ideal or incrementally at the margin, program by program? I've done mostly the latter, (unless you consider Marxism the ideal, which I have studied extensively), and at the margin, I find both the means and the result impractical and/or unjustifiable and the means optimistic promises dishonest.--Silverback 03:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's hard to assess something that has yet to be practiced. But you can look at the inefficient medical system in the US where per capita costs are higher yet tens of millions have no coverage compared to "socialised medicine" systems which are both cheaper per capita because of efficiencies of scale and no loss to the system due to profit and which also cover more (all) of the population. AndyL 17:19, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also because fewer resources are wasted on administration. Look at all the people in the US whose jobs are related to insurance. Nothing but waste. Shorne 17:57, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Andy and Shorne, insurance, not just medical, but auto and other as well (insuring risk where the incentive is to cherry pick and avoid risk), is exactly the area where capitalist behavior has issues that I have not yet fully worked through. Unfortunately, I have not see a good analysis of what efficiency improvements a centralized socialist system can wring out of the current state of affairs. The best analysis is unfortunately from the time of Hillary's effort, and does not reflect all the costs wrung out the system since then by the increased influence of HMOs and preferred providers. But socialized medicine is also the area where I suspect the proponents are sugar coating, perhaps to the point of dishonesty. There will have to be rationing that trades lives for costs, such as in what level of screening will be covered. More screening will almost always save lives, but there is a point in low risk populations where the costs of investigating false positives start to outweigh the costs saved. However, in the private system, these the patient and doctor have more input into this value judgement than they would in a centrally controlled system. My wife wants a pap smear every year, even though I insist that since she is not positive for HPV, 5 years is the recommended period, she thinks that it is worth it for her peace of mind. Currently she has that choice? Will she under a socialized system? If the in the society she is still free to shell out convection oven, why shouldn't she also still be free to shell out for a full body scan? Will luxury medical care be outlawed? Are the proponents being honest?--Silverback 02:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please take this libertarian rant somewhere else. It has nothing to do with this article. Shorne 04:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Read it, instead of providing a non-substantive knee jerk characterization. 80 to 90% was on communism, the rest was the usual human inefficiency in communicating.--Silverback 05:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, you aren't contributing anything here. You're just engaging in intellectual masturbation (and as you know, sex with yourself is a poor substitute for the real thing) and wasting everyone's time. Wikipedia isn't a debating forum. Go somewhere else to argue. AndyL 13:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

AndyL, if your post is the standard I must measure up to, then I guess this isn't a debating forum.

Time for me to chime in, Yeah! I think its pretty clear that Marx saw violence as the means to create the socialist paradise. Violence and force were to be used not just to destroy capitalism, but to physicaly eliminate the bourgiose.

At least be honest about it people. TDC 21:11, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

He definitely used devisive categorizations and characterizations of them. He framed things as black and white, us versus them, exploiter versus exploited, accused them of being thieves (of the value of proletarian labor), etc. After such daemonization and dehumanization, he bears some responsibility for what happened. He managed to create a class "consciousness", every bit as virulent, inhuman and mindless as nationalism.--Silverback 04:00, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some things to Fix

The stuff about the native american Means dosen't belong where it is. Needs to be moved and contextualized, if it belongs in the article at all, to the section on critiques. The thing with Etiene Cabet is factually wrong. He was not the first to use the term, although he was a communist utopian, and he certainly didn't propound the 'theory of communism' as is inferred in the entry. He did write about communism, and termed it such, but was not the first or the most influential by any means. It deserves referrence but i think earlier nominal communists like Babeuf also deserve mention. There is pretty much a line of continuity between the communists and socialists who fought (and for a time controlled)in the French Revolution of the 18th century, and 19th and 20th century communists and socialists. Capone69.111.18.60 21:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It would be nice to fix these things if no one objects too much. Can't though with this protected thingy on here. Is this because we are afraid of an edit and revert battle? I hope by now the editors of this page have become comfortable with eachother so that the progress of this page can resume. Capone 23:03, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Resolving Disputes

Those who took it upon themselves to put a protection on this page without discussing it here in the discussion area have a responsibility to mitigate the costs of putting it on protection. They need to act promptly and make a serious effort to resolve these problems by taking the time NOW to engage in a meaningfull dialogue about the future of this page. There are serious problems with the page as it currently exists and now we are "frozen" with this version until further notice. A prolonged dispute tag on a page is contrary to wiki. Capone68.123.238.128 02:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any notice here about the terms and time limits of protection, nor the moment and reason of protection. It will be removed in 24 hours and the article split into manageable pieces, so that other people could do something useful somewhere. Mikkalai 05:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that the article on communism contain just a brief note regarding Marxism and Marxism-Leninism with links to them. The communism article would then deal with Plato, Utopia by Thomas More, Utopian communisms, monestaries, etc. Fred Bauder 16:21, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

In fact, all of these: Plato, Utopia, etc., deserve their own articles, with summaries in the main article. Judgement and criticism of specific sub-subjects must be localized in the respective sub-articles, so that they could be manageable and reasonable agreements attainable, unlike the "shining horizons of Communism". . Mikkalai 18:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Communism

I fully understand and appreciate the work on the series of communism articles, because the current wikipedia content presents a distorted and childish view of the topic. However this anomalously long template consumes huge space on the page and decreases the readability of the article. Please use the instrument of categories to keep track of articles related to the same topic: this is one of the main reasons of introduction of categoies. Please notice that the category pages themselves may contain significant explanatory text; see, e.g., Category:Communism. What is more, you can set a temporary, work catgory, specifically for the purposes of ongoing develpmnent, e.g., Category:Communism articles: work in progress. Mikkalai 03:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the template should be formatted better so that the text will not be forced beneath it. But categories are not adequate for what we are doing. Please discuss any concerns with User:Oceanhahn, who is the designer of the template. Shorne 04:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I said, we are making a series, something like that of Liberalism. Categories are not sufficient. Please leave the menu in place while we organise the numerous articles. I've already stated that the discussion can be found at Communist ideology.

Your work should not hinder the readability of the article. Please find a better representation of your table, if you really need it. As of now, I have to scroll two screens until I get to the actual text of the article. Your link to the discussion in red, i.e., wrong. Mikkalai 04:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. Please mention it to Oceanhahn. Sorry about the link. It should be Talk:Communist Ideology. (Really, the capital I should be changed to lower case.) Shorne 04:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Those recent additions on economics smack of POV. For now, I have merely altered some POV wording. Other changes, however, may be necessary. Shorne 04:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, any discussion of theoretical topics in economy, politics, etc., are inherently discussions of POVs. This is not like the description of, say, colors of frogs in middle Amazon basin. Any theory is POV and must be attributed to a particular POV, rather than stated as an absolute truth. Mikkalai 04:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"attribute your statements"

You didn't attribute your statements. They might go better under "Criticism". Shorne 04:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These are my statements about real life. Please prove that they are wrong or irrelevant. And they are in the "Criticism" section. And by the way, actually they happen to be in line with Marxism, hence they are not really "criticism" of communism. It is absurd to think that if Marx were alive he would not take new important developments of world economy and society into an account. Mikkalai 04:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course Marx would take developments into account. That doesn't mean that he would agree with you. And your or my private opinions are not necessarily good material for an encyclopædia. Shorne 05:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you happen to know the difference between the words "statement" and "opinion"? Mikkalai 07:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But Mikkalai, you cannot quote yourself. I don't see how your own personal musings about life belong in the article. That would be original research. Any statement which is POV must be attributed to its original writer. Wikipedians are usually not these writers unless you have some other credentials to share with us. As far as Shorne is speaking, it is not an issue in this context between statement and opinion since being one does not negate it being both. Capone69.111.188.62 07:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"And you are right, too, Moishe", an old Jewish joke says. But did you happen to see the statements in question? (1) Capitalism proved to be flexible (i.e., capable to evolve): true or false? (2) Technological revolution changed the character of labor: true or false? (3) Bureaucratization of economic relations in socialt countries: (as early as Lenin warned about this danger): true or false? Mikkalai 08:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes I did happen to see them, unlike some people who haunt this area, I happen to have some knowledge in this area. In reference to statement "1", Marx never claimed that capitalism was inflexible, but rather saw that it was a socio-economnic system, which, like others before it, was based upon class relations within a given level of techno-economic relations. He did not set out to prove that capitalism was inflexible per se and never set out a time-table as such which said that capitalism would end at such and such date in time. So while it is true that capitalism has evolved in time, it is something of a straw-man to frame this statement within the context of saying that Marx said something to the contrary. In fact, Marx agreed with the notion of economic systems being capable of evolving. This even forms one of the bases of his whole outlook. While it is a precarious and dangerous course to compare biological evolution to social evolution, there arises a similar contradiction in taxonomy. While capitalism has evolved, it is difficult to determine if Marx or capitalists during his time would call the present system "capitalism", if one applied a rigorous or historically specific definition to that term. Of course, one could go the other way with the definition, and through generalizing such a term enough, one could easily arrive at the conclusion that "capitalism" has always existed! An overly specific or idealistic definition would lead us to say that "capitalism" has never existed! The rise of state-capitalism, corporatism, monopolism, and Keynesian economics in the 20th century, have allowed us to maintain a working model for a system which may or may not properly be called capitalism. This ties directly to point "2", since in fact the concept that technological changes are one of the bases on which history itself changes or moves along or mutates, evolves or what have you, is a Marxist concept. As to point "3", no, Lenin did not warn of economic bureaucratization of the production process. He warned of political bureaucratization of the political process, often now referred to as "Stalinism". Of course this all begs the question "what is bureaucracy", what is bureaucratism, and why in "our" (western?) culture to we attach a negative connotation to the term when the term denotes something neutral? Capone 69.111.72.154 19:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do people really have to attribute every single sentence? IMO something wrong with common sense in such requirement. An old Soviet joke goes: "The Communist party teaches us that gasses expand when heated." Do you want wikipedia look like this? Mikkalai 08:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the common sense approach to wiki, if there can be said to be one, is that YES, every statement MUST BE ATTRIBUTED which is challenged by another wikipedian. If it cannot withstand the "scrutiny" of something as simple as attribution, then it most certainly does not belong in a wiki, or any other, entry. --Capone69.111.72.154 19:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The topic of this article

I have looked at the recent edit war and have not reverted. Not because I disagree with the information "my side" is advancing but because I have become uncertain as what this article ought to be about. Communism is an ancient idea with roots in traditional cultural practices. Due to the adoption of "communism" by Marx and its continued use by communist parties the idea has become wedded to Marx's ideology and to the practices of Marxist-Lenist states. But they have their own articles. How should we organize this article to deal in a general way with all of this? My suggestion, set out above is to have sections on Marxist, Marxism-Leninism and the Communist state consisting of brief introductions regarding these areas with links to them. For this article to be part of the communism series is also dubious as that project seems to not be about communism but limited to modern Marxist-Leninist thought, political parties and governments. The inclusion of the logo is also a problem, as there is no general logo of all communist parties and would not at all represent the content of the article if it were about communism rather than about Marxism-Leninism. Fred Bauder 15:27, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

These are important questions. You'll find a discussion of them at Talk:Communist Ideology. I invite you to contribute if you have any suggestions. This and related articles (such as Communist state) are chaotic, with everything from Plato to Ceauşescu's executioners thrown in. Much better organisation is needed. Shorne 16:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The idea may be ancient, but the word is not. The term "Communism" as a mutation of the word "communal", "community" appeared not before the second half of 19th century. Please don't forget that our worldview depends on the words we use to describe it. To call primitive societies "communism" is the same as to call an ant "animal": it is true, but hides tremendous differences. For starters, how about slaves; not only in primitive societies, but in Utopia as well, not to say about Plato's? Let's face it: Marx put the word into wide usage, and it is his invention to apply the term to troglodytes to justify his theory. From whatever side you look at it, Communism is Marxism (plus extras; but again, any theory evolves from its roots). Mikkalai 16:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that Plato's Republic as a communist model is an argument, not a matter of fact. Plato never refered to it as communism, and most communists, most but perhaps the most of the unreconstructed neo-stalinists, would never even recognize the republic as communistic. My education tells me that Leo Strauss in his book "The City and Man", from the Chicago school of political science, was first and most prominent to make the plato-communism connection, and so all I would want to do is ATTRIBUTE that statement to Leo Strauss since that's the scholarly or academic thing to do. -Capone69.111.72.154 19:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I am saying. Starting from Marx himself, people apply the word "communistic" to whatever they feel like. One should carefully distinguish the notions of "communism", "elements of communism" and layman's usage, kind of, "bloody communism". Mikkalai 01:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moving Criticisms to Criticism Section

As previously discussed in the talk area, criticisms we all agreed belong in the criticisms section and must be attributed (As well as statements in other sections).-Capone69.111.72.154 19:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And again...

"Governments that pledged their adherence to communism have, like capitalist countries, been accused of the deaths of tens of millions of their own population (see The Black Book of Communism), a claim that remains hotly disputed."

This article, for the moment anyway, is about Communist countries, not capitalist ones. Moreover, I am not familiar with capitalist regimes (which must be understood apart from fascist regimes) that have even been accused of murdering tens of millions of their own citizens. Until Ruy Lopez or someone else provides attribution, I'm removing that assertion. Mackensen (talk) 23:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why fascist régimes don't count as capitalist régimes. Hitler, for example, was avowedly capitalist and had the support of such major US capitalists as Ford and Hearst.

If you want an attribution, however, use UNESCO, which reports that 15,000,000 children per year in today's capitalist world die of starvation. Since the world produces enough food to feed everyone, the blood is on the hands of the economic system that keeps that food out of certain mouths. Shorne 23:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hitler avowedly capitalist? Not by any metric I'm familiar with. The support of a capitalist does not make one a capitalist. Nazi Germany, with its massive state intervention in the economy, destruction of individual freedoms, and limitation of the open market does not look very capitalist to me. Now, UNESCO reports that 15,000,000 million children die every year in "today's capitalist world". That's a very broad assertion. Has this been documented in a study? If so, who authored it? It is available to be examined? Where did these 15 million unfortunates live? Are their deaths the result of deliberate oppression, willful neglect, or contingency? Does the study argue that these deaths occured demonstrably in the service of capitalist ideology? I think these questions are worth addressing. The burden for answering them must be upon those who wish to add the material. Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One point at a time:

Yes, Nazi Germany had a good deal of governmental intervention in the economy. So what? So do plenty of other capitalist countries. It's just a matter of degree. Destruction of individual freedoms is entirely compatible with capitalism; any number of instances can be menitoned, from Indonesia to the US. Limitation of the open market—again, this is found in all capitalist countries. If you define capitalism as the libertarians' ideal, you effectively define it out of existence. Not a useful exercise.

I'll look up a citation for UNESCO's estimate. (The actual number that I read is 40,000 per day, which is 15 million per year, or 100 million every seven years. Note that that means that capitalism kills more children, not to mention adults, every seven years by this one cause alone than the ridiculously exaggerated total of The Black Book of Communism.) Here's a link that I found with a quick search: [5] It says that 16 million people die of starvation every year. Since most of them are children, this estimate is close enough to the 15 million that I read elsewhere. Again, I'll look up the reference.

I can answer your other questions. About seventy percent of the children who starve to death these days are from Asia—capitalist countries such as Bangladesh and India—, and most of the remainder are from Africa. The deaths are the result of deliberate oppression by the worldwide capitalist system, which keeps food out of these children's mouths when there is plenty to feed everyone. Capitalism deliberately destroys food—ploughing it under, burning it, dumping it in the ocean—in order to maintain high prices. It also destroys subsistence farming by turning entire Third World countries into banana republics that grow cash crops needed by the First World instead of the grain and other essential foods that the countries themselves need. (See the excellent article Economy of Africa for a discussion.) And of course capitalism defines as "theft" the taking of food by hungry people. There's quite enough food to go around. If the profit motive is keeping it out of the mouths of millions of people, capitalism is to blame.

Finally, if the burden for answering your questions about UNESCO's report is upon those who cite it, surely a similar burden attaches to those who quote The Black Book of Communism above numerous outright objections posted on the talk pages of Communism, Communist state, and other articles. Are you going to demand the removal of this reference—indeed, of the entire passage that is based on it? Or are you going to impose a double standard? Shorne 02:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalist? Perhaps. Liberal and democratic? No. I draw a distinction, because capitalism is only an economic system, which can be wedded to numerous social and political systems, as the above examples of, say, Nazi Germany and Bangladesh would attest. The blanket statement that ignited this discussion is unaware of said distinction. Granted, the libertarian ideal is impossible. Nazi Germany was a fascist state, though, and is thus usually not considered in the same breath as other more liberal capitalist countries.

Agreed that Nazi Germany was not liberal. (Democratic? In its early days, maybe.) On the other hand, an even worse mixed bag of régimes is being labelled communist here and, in particular, at Communist state. At least such régimes as the US, Bangladesh, and Nazi Germany, though certainly different in important ways, have in common the capitalist organisation of their economies around private profit. It's hard to find anything significant that would unite the alleged "communist states" of the USSR, Ethiopia, and Cambodia. While most of us would agree that the USSR was a socialist country at one time, Ethiopia never got very far on the socialist road, and Cambodia was a bizarre case of extremism that most communists reject as plainly non-Marxist. Shorne 04:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My only complaint regarding UNESCO is that your comment was very vague. I had no idea what report in particular you were speaking of, thus I had no means of verifying it independently.

You were right to ask for a reference. Shorne 04:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now, as regards deaths. It is possible to lay at the feet of these "capitalist" regimes the deaths of poor from starvation. However, this is surely a sin of ommission rather than commission. The section in question was talking about Communist regimes that have been accussed of deliberately murdering their own citizens. There's a crucial difference here, I think. Mackensen (talk) 03:32, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, I don't think that many people here are accusing any "Communist regimes … of deliberately murdering their own citizens", at least not on the scale of tens of millions. Most of the accusations seem to pertain to alleged famines and the like, which would count as sins of omission if the millions of deaths from starvation under capitalism do.

Second, I don't agree that ongoing starvation—an eight-digit number of deaths year after year—counts as a sin of omission. True, withholding food is not as direct and aggressive as putting a bullet between someone's eyes, but it is murder all the same. (Arguably it's worse. I'd rather be shot outright than slowly starved to death.) Dead people don't care whether they were killed liberally and democratically or otherwise. Your argument for omission would be stronger if it referred, say, to bad decisions that happened to coincide with a natural disaster. But the problem is ongoing, year after year. I count it as a sin of commission. Capitalism has the food and the means to get it to people. If it fails to feed them, that's a matter of priorities: profits above Bangladeshis.

Incidentally, please note that the world could feed everyone and still remain capitalist. Just as essentially everyone in the First World now gets to go to school, and just as everyone in Canada and most Western European countries gets medical care, it would be possible to provide some minimum of food to everyone in the world, even under the capitalist system. It would take some coördination among countries, but it would be possible in principle. I haven't seen many efforts from the rich capitalist countries to make this happen, although a number of poorer countries did put forward a proposal at the UN a few years ago that would have added livelihood itself to the list of fundamental human rights. (The US shot that down, apparently in fear that it would lead to demands that the rich countries send some food to the poor ones.) Capitalism could do something, but instead it accepts tens of millions of deaths per year attributable to starvation or preventable diseases, not to mention close to a billion cases of malnutrition. Shorne 04:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This difference is crucial, perhaps, if one is able to differentiate between the two. Now, deliberate murder, this is a figure that is easier to get at. The USSR went out of the business of murdering political dissidents in 1938 or so. I remember somewhere that this figure was around 100,000 but I need to review this from other published accounts. I do recall that most of these murders were of other communists who were accused of plotting against the USSR, in the form of trotskyism or some other "petit-bourgeois derivations".-Capone 04:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You got it all wrong, bud. Mikkalai 04:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I forgot to take into account that I have it all wrong, homey. I love your sarcasm. Excellent point by the way.--Capone 05:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And very informative and helpful, I may add. Shorne 16:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's also the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward in China to consider. Also, I imagine that the critics of communism would include those deaths which resulted from forced collectization of agriculture (the argument that a government-compelled act which results in death is the government's fault). Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

True: Executions and political murders from the cultural revolution should be included. This was almost 20 years after the revolution itself and the deaths on either side considered themselves "communists" - based in an intra-party fight - like the trotskyists in russia, people playing the game knew the stakes, so to speak (in politics, there are no innocents)False: "forced" collectivization and the great leap forward may have resulted from "crimes of ommission", as you put it quite well, but certainly were not "crimes of commission", which I would agree is all that belongs in a "Death toll" count. However, there is an underlying political motive behind those who seem bent on having some kind of death toll count in this article. The moral assumption here is that more deaths = more incrimination of the theory and practice of communism. Since all states in history have engaged in politically ordained murder, it seems superfluous in this article. The underlying message for the "death toll" people here is that there is some significant and noteworthy connection between communism on the one hand, and people dying on the other. I have not seen one. I do not agree that there should be any such death toll count on the capitalism page or the communism page.

So to get back to your original point, which was well taken, this whole issue of "like capitalist countries, have been accused of the deaths of millions of their own people"; either the mention of "like capitalist countries" remains, which seems only fair, or both mentions go. I would prefer that both mentions go since these figures seem to be almost purely propagandistic in nature.-Capone 04:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There's really no place for blackening communism with some vague and monstrously distorted "death toll". Mackensen seems a lot more reluctant to accept such calculations for capitalism, which produce numbers vastly higher than even the wildest claims of rabble-rousing scribblers, but is substantially less critical about the communist side. There also seems to be an assumption that what executions did occur under Stalin or whomever were entirely motivated by silencing dissenting voices—as if none of the people executed had been guilty of anything more than opening his mouth. I also note the convenient insistence on talking about each country's own population in isolation, as if the Vietnamese and Iraqis killed by the US were somehow less worthy of consideration than the US's domestic population.

In short, the mentions of death tolls must go, from this and other articles. They serve to proselytise, not to inform. Shorne 13:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They aren't less worthy of consideration per se, except that the matter in question is a country's own population. We've already got articles on imperialism. Imperialism is not peculiar to capitalism, nor is it a necessity for capitalism to function. You say that I seem reluctant to accept similar calculations for capitalism. Well, yes, I am. To do so would be to assent to a moral equivocation of monstrous proportions. That the Soviets killed millions of their own citizens is not in dispute by mainstream historians. That the People's Republic of China killed millions of its own citizens is not in dispute by mainstream historians. That the Soviet Union was installed by a violent revolution and maintained by the systematic crushing of internal dissent is not in dispute by mainstream historians–nor most Russian historians, for that matter. That the United States, the United Kingdom, France, non-Nazi Germany, and other "capitalist" (I will remind you again that to call them capitalist is somewhat misleading) have not murdered millions upon millions over their own citizens, or kept their regimes in place through the harsh crushing of dissidents, is also not in dispute by mainstream historians. The Stalinist view of the world is considered beyond the pale by everyone except the Stalinists. To place it at the same level as that of the mainstream (which you no doubt regard as bourgeois), is to accord it a primacy that it does not deserve. Naturally, articles can note that Stalinists dispute that Stalin was a paranoid mass-murderer. They are in the minority. Mackensen (talk) 16:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, what "mainstream historians" say does not determine the truth. Wikipedia claims to be NPOV, factual, and informative. Allowing an allegedly "mainstream" POV to set the tone is a violation of NPOV, especially when such opinions conflict with the facts.

Second, I note with interest that you haven't disputed the substance of the extensive comments made by Capone and me. Like Fred Bauder, you concentrate on popularity—in the limited context of well-fed Westerners who spent their youth searching for reds under the beds.

Third, you red-bait those who claim—correctly—that capitalism kills hundreds of millions of people every decade by withholding food, clean water, and basic medical care. Calling this "[t]he Stalinist view of the world" is a demagogue's tactic.

Fourth, the US, the UK, France, non-Nazi Germany, and other capitalist countries have indeed murdered millions upon millions of their own citizens—or at least of the residents of their territory, whether or not such people were regarded as citizens by the capitalist governments in question. Need I mention the genocide that pushed the indigenous population of an entire hemisphere to the brink of extinction? How about slavery, revolution, civil war, conscription for military adventures abroad?

Finally, if you think that "Stalin was a paranoid mass-murderer" is an NPOV statement that belongs in this or any other article, there is no point in discussing anything with you. Shorne 18:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't regard that as an NPOV statement, I regard it as my opinion, and I apologize for my outburst. I shouldn't get so angry. Rash denunciations without proper context don't belong here. Now, I wasn't red-baiting, at least not on purpose. You attribute to capitalism the problems of poverty. Poverty has been a problem since the beginning of time. It was a problem before capitalism. It has been a problem during capitalism. It will likely be a problem after capitalism–although what will follow I do not know. Yes, let us speak of genocide. The massacre of Native Americans began back with Columbus, at the tail end of the Fifteenth Century. That's roughly 270 years before Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. What existed in the Americas then can not be called capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. I would appreciate specific examples of what you regard as "genocide" that occurred under a "capitalist" regime. While we're at it, I will return to the essential point. The reason for mentioning death tolls in an article on Communism is because critics assert that these deaths were a result of communist practices, not just your everyday totalitarian/authoritarian system. The repression, the forced collectivization of agriculture, the mass transfers of population. I would contest, as have others, that capitalism, by its nature, causes mass death. I argue this because those outrages which you refer to could easily occur under any sort of regime.

I agree that capitalism didn't exist in Columbus's day. (The prevailing system in Spain was feudalism.) It was, however, in full swing when the young United States started its westward expansion, slaughtering the First Nations as it went and deporting them from the east. Something similar can be said about Canada and Australia when they were parts of the British empire. Again, however, I reject the narrow limits of this discussion. Why should we confine it to a handful of capitalist states that you like (the US but not Bangladesh or Nazi Germany), and only to those states' murder of their own populations? Colonialism secures relative tranquillity in the Metropolis by sharing the wealth violently expropriated from the colonies.

I have shown above that capitalism does cause mass death. I have also shown that it wouldn't have to: that even under capitalism it would be possible, in principle, to feed everyone today. If you wish to contest my argument, please do so.

I respectfully submit that you're not playing fairly. A few hundred thousand or a few million people who died of starvation in the USSR or China were "killed" by the state, never mind such factors as crop failure or destruction of food by counterrevolutionaries; yet an eight-digit number of deaths from starvation year after year in capitalist countries is just a fluke that "could easily occur under any sort of regime". Actually, I don't mind holding the governments of China and the USSR fully responsible for the alleged deaths in their countries, just for the sake of argument, or even for every single exaggerated claim in The Black Book of Communism, if you'll agree to apply the same standard to the capitalist countries. No special pleading, please. I've already shown that capitalism kills as many children every seven years from starvation alone as communism was alleged to have killed in seventy years in the lying Black Book. By whatever fair standard you choose, capitalism comes out far bloodier than communism. Shorne 20:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, I have yet to see any facts provided regarding Communism that did not come from Stalinist sources. Again, please accept my apologies for the above outburst.18:51, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the sources have seemed Stalinist, that is probably because we have been talking mostly about the USSR under Stalin. I and others have also quoted from such patently non-Stalinist sources as the Encyclopædia Britannica and The New York Times. Shorne 20:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Even the Dengist trial of the Gang of Four accused them of only some 40,000 deaths during the Cultural Revolution. Shorne 04:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to add that such issues as deaths during the Cultural Revolution are a lot more complex than the finger simple-mindedly pointed at the government (or at Mao in particular). First of all, the Cultural Revolution was most of all a popular movement, not an act of the state. Second, it was, as Capone said, to a large extent a battle between rival factions. A rough analogy would be blaming deaths during the US's civil war entirely on the US government, as if the Confederacy had not been a participant. Third, there seems to be no analysis of what these "deaths" mean. Who died from what? We can't even begin a serious analysis without answers to such questions. But then serious analysis seems not to be the goal of the people here who keep bashing China with a whoppingly exaggerated and meaningless number pulled out of a mass-market book of propaganda. Shorne 13:18, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"A popular movement" after a generation of indoctrination by the party. It took quite a different form than popular movements in democracies. Perhaps it was an example of progressive mass-action democracy?--Silverback 15:10, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Issues of "indoctrination" aside, "a generation" seems wrong: the Cultural Revolution started only 17 years after the foundation of the PRC. Nevertheless, "progressive mass-action democracy" strikes me as a singularly good way to summarise the Cultural Revolution in three words. Congratulations. Shorne 16:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, even 18 to 20 year olds are considered vulnerable enough to quickly indoctrinate in boot camps, so after 17 years, the 6 to 20 year olds will be 23 to 37 years old and add the new young teens to that and you have a generation that is the product of the new regime. Mass-action democracy does not require majorities or pluralities or recognize procedural or evidentiary justice, it just needs a mob too large to control. The anti-intellectual component of the China's cultural revolution, and the government's implicit condoning of it by standing on the sidelines, demonstrates that critical thinking was considered a threat to the ruling elite and only conformist thinking could be allowed to exist.--Silverback 12:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If the Cultural Revolution was the work of "a mob too large to control", how do people justify blaming Mao for its (genuine or fictional) excesses? And how can you accuse the government of "standing on the sidelines" when, in your opinion, there was nothing that could have been done? I don't entirely approve of the formulation "a mob too large to control", but it's better than most of the assessments that I've seen here. I congratulate you again. I don't get your point about "critical thinking", however. Shorne 02:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that the cultural revolution was mass-action democracy, I believe it was factions within the government that were instigating and codoning it. I brought up mass-action democracy as a description of the explanation that was being offered that it was a popular movement and that the state was not involved or responsible. My purpose was to point out that even if the state was uninvolved, one could argue that the type of indoctrination education system meant that existed the state bore considerable responsibility. The fact that the educated were particularly targeted by the cultural revolution, is a sign that whoever was behind the movement was threatened by those who were capable of critical thinking and might question what was going on. The fact that the factions chose mass-action rather than procedural and evidentiary justice to achieve their results also showed that either that society had failed to provide such mechanisms or that the factions did not think critical thinking was on their side.--Silverback 04:53, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also believe that there were definite factions involved in the Cultural Revolution and that it is wrong to paint the situation either as chaos or as an instance of nasty culprits beating up innocent victims. Glad that we agree on something.

Your conclusion about "the educated" is fallacious. Correlation does not imply causation. You could as well say "The fact that Chinese people were particularly targeted is a sign that whoever was behind the movement was a racist".

The use of "procedural and evidentiary justice" assumes an authority, and it was precisely because the authority itself had come under criticism that such recourse was not possible. It's funny that you accuse the Cultural Revolution of being opposed to critical thinking when it placed criticism front and centre. Shorne 06:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, the viewpoints you are advancing are entitled to brief mention in an article on communism. The majority view and that of most academics is that not only was there a serious deathtoll, but that Marxist-Leninist social experimentation was both destructive and generally unproductive in that we know little new except that people will conform when faced by terror. Fred Bauder 14:29, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

You are right, but you fail to mention that other Marxists claim that this experimentation and all was in fact wild departure from "true" Marxism. And as a personal POV I would add that this happened because from the major, I'd say lethal, drawback of their theory: lack of safeguards against such departures. Many communist theoreticians blindly believed their own propaganda that human nature is inherently good, as opposed to their POV about capitalist POV that human nature is inherently evil. ("in our country a man to a man is friend, comrade, and brother, while in capitalist states a man to a man is wolf") Mikkalai 20:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, if I may: Marx never said that human nature is inherently good. That's a religious belief, not a scientific one. Elsewhere you have correctly stated that Marx acknowledged that so-called "human nature" arises from social conditions, which change over time. If certain "communist theoreticians" held a religious belief and drew incorrect conclusions from it, that's no fault of Marx's. Shorne 06:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree with you. I think part of the distortion was due to the basic good natured character of Russians, of whom the peasants, at least, had a strong traditional commitment to equality, a commitment generally not shared by Germanic people of whom I count the English and Americans. I have by no means given up on Marxism but I'd like to see them win an election before they try to administer a country. A government which makes great changes needs to have the vast majority of the people behind it. Democratic centralism (and the associated deformations which result from clandestine operations) seem to be a major culprit as they set the stage for extreme concentration of authority when a Party takes power. Fred Bauder 21:19, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

People write pages and pages of discussion, you dismiss it all with one sentence, and you expect me to take you seriously? Shorne 14:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I do, just as expect right-wing POV warriors to take me seriously. Nazi or Marxist-Leninist viewpoints are significant but are minority viewpoints. They are properly included in articles but have no right to dominate them due to their status. Fred Bauder 16:05, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well how are you determining which views are minority and majority? What is your methodology? Based upon the number of books written, pro and con? Based upon the credentials of the writers? Based upon where you live, or based upon the books you've pointed yourself to read? Based on what they told you in school? On the history channel? Robert Conquest? In the United States? Was there a poll? What do you imagine or can you prove what the "majority" view-point is? Do you purport to "have" the majority view-point? Unproductive? In what sense? Destructive? How? Fred, it looks like you have wild propagandistic fantasies about what is or isn't communism. And you want to insert them into this page under the guise of "majority view"? And lastly, what marxist-leninist viewpoint is being put forward on this article other than stating, factually, what marx or lenin said or did about communism - which certainly IS POV - their point of view, and so our objective reporting of their point of view is NPOV. Your subjective musings about terror, psychology, totalitarianism, social experimentation, etc. - are what do not belong on this page.Capone 20:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My methodology. Yes, there was a poll. It's called an election. I don't know if any "Marxist-Leninist" parties are on the ballet, but if they do run openly they don't draw many votes. I think as a rough measure we can take the number of votes worldwide for Marxist-Leninists in free elections, approaching zero, as a measure of the significance of their viewpoint. But to be generous brief inclusion of that viewpoint is warranted as they do hold power in a few countries. Marx and Lenin were significant in their time, but we are writing from the standpoint of 2004. Fred Bauder 21:31, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

So in other words, you have no methodology. Just your instincts. Let's leave aside that ridiculous error in your reasoning that voting for a marxist-leninist party (or not) is somehow a refferendum on the number of deaths attributable to communism. Your instincts tell you that because there are no major marxist-leninist parties which garner significant electoral support in a regime which has enforced a two-party duopoly in the united states, where you live, therefor in other countries which use proportional representation there cannot be marxist-leninist parties which garner significant support. Also, let us leave aside the fact that many marxist-leninist factions do not agree with having an electoral strategy anyway. If you were actually a student of international affairs, you would see the world exists in a way markedly different from the one you have had painted over your eyes. All over the world, marxist-leninist parties and their evolutionary spin-offs often do well at the polls. The communists in India were the primary single outside faction that got Indiri Ghandi elected in the recent elections there. Communists in England have been one of the prime movers for Labour, then and now. Communists in the United States often get behind the Democratic Party nominee in national elections, significantly - Bill Clinton and FD Roosevelt. In Russia today, the communists have more than 60 seats in the duma, and is part of the majority coalition with the unity party. Before the recent French run-off election between LePen and Chirac, the total communist vote including trotskyists and leninists was over 10 million persons, most of whom then voted for Chirac (the winner) in the run-off. I could go on if you want . . . Capone 01:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Own Population?

What is an "own population"? A population in biology is a group within a given species which often interbreed due to geographical factors. Are we talking then of geographical proximity? Or are you applying legal standards, such as citizenship? If this is the case, well, Hitler stripped the jews of legal citizenship before offing them, so I suppose he's not so bad since he didn't kill millions of his own people. They were just ridding Germany of Zionist colonialism, you see, it was an independence movement. There is no evidence that the USSR or China murdered millions of their own people. Where is it? There was one book, the black book of communism, which was debunked as totally unscientific. Even people who helped collaborate with the sections in it, disagree with the method used by the editor. There are several sections in the archives about that here. Native Americans were not citizens, were not even considered part of the human race, a subhuman species of less-than-white people. I suppose the fact that they often interbred with whites and black slaves (oh lordy is that a whole other issue) makes them part of the population in social and scientific terms.-Capone 20:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool down here. This could be an infortunate wording, but the idea was to exclude killing during wars; e.g., to exclude the fact that during the WWII Germany killed probably more Russians that Stalin during Great Purge. Also, Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings alone give pretty nice figure as well, for the case if someone decides to write an article about who keeps the highest "kill density" score it terms of "heads per day". 21:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that the USSR or China murdered millions of their own people." How come they keep finding mass graves? Fred Bauder 21:34, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Where are you getting this, The National Enquirer? WHAT mass graves do they keep finding that would substantiate claims that millions of people were summarily executed. This is getting ridiculous. Attribute attribute attribute. Capone 23:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Majority Opinion Vs. Science

Majority opinion of laymen, or majority opinion of scholars and experts? I disagree that the notion that the USSR and China deliberately murdered millions of "their own" people is a majority opinion of laymen OR scholars. Critics of the USSR and China who are better at staying on point do not waste their time in dealing with whether or not these places were communist. They maintain that the brutality was primarily between the state which represented primarily one ethnic group, and other peripheral regions where ethnically non-chinese or non-russians lived. More importantly, they maintain that the USSR and PRoChina inherited an empire from the Russian and Chinese empires. I hope this brings to an end my part of the the "own people", colonialism, imperialism discussion. Even if it were possible to demonstrate with the information presented here that it was a majority opinion that the USSR and China killed millions of people in a time of peace, this article would then need to explain why so many people believed this to be true since it was contrary to the facts. I think this is the wiki thing to do and if you look at the article on race which was featured on the main page this week, they deal really well with science vs. the majority opinion of laymen.--Capone 21:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Soviet Union certainly abused minority groups, even Ukrainians, a closely related ethic group, but Russians were the main victims. The Russian portion of the Black Book is generally considered well researched. Fred Bauder 21:38, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainians aren't a minority. They are Ukrainians, the majority of people where they primarily live, in the Ukraine. Capone 23:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for the Russian part of black book of communism, the Russian part is considered to be based primarily on the figures of Robert Conquest's "Harvest of Sorrow", figures which have already been debunked by other better educated historians using scientific methodology and not just heresay and number juggling times 10. Most of the debate going on here are more appropriate in the article anti-communism. Anti-communism is a NATO nations socio-ideological construct, the same way that the USSR calling itself socialist was such a construct, a legitimating ideology.Capone 23:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Non-hierarchal society

This whole section is removed from article as non-applicable. This article is about actual communism ideology, not about what Western ideologists chose to call "communist states".

A non-hierarchical society and the equal distribution of work and goods is one of the primary goals of communism. Such a society would run in accord with Marx's principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". However, in all societies that have been described in the West as communist (where a communist party was the sole party in power), some kind of social hierarchy was established. For example, the differentiation of wages in Poland in 1987 was at nearly the same level as the differentiation of wages in highly developed capitalist countries. Such unequal distribution was usually explained with the need for a phase of socialism (during which the rule of distribution is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work") that would prepare society for the transition to communism, but Marxist critics of the so-called communist states which called themselves socialist republics would point to this case in Poland as being a proof that the Warsaw Pact nations, and the socialist republics in south-east and east Asia, were in fact capitalist.

Mikkalai 08:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the removed section does deal with what western ideologists have chosen to call communist states. So is this article to be purely on the theory of communism? Does not communism entail many things, including what other people may have erroneously consider communism? Somehow, somewhere, in this article, this must be tackled. There needs to be a mention of the fact that communists at anytime did not believe that any of the so-called communist states were at all communist. It is also true that many communists today do not even consider the USSR or China to have been socialist, while many of their communist predecessors contrarily did. At any rate, I agree with this removal. Good work. -Capone 08:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The main idea is to unmix this potluck here. All what you say fits. Mikkalai 08:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who keeps reverting attempts to NPOV this article by inserting a needless link to a so-called soviet empire, when all that is required is a link to satellite states or warsaw pact? Warsaw pact and satellite state articles both provide list-type information on which countries were tied closely to the USSR. I will make another attempt at this change (third try). Then I will look at the history of recent changes page. Capone 08:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of Marxist psychology

Someone also just added a long POV passage alleging that Marx "simply failed" to account for human nature. Factually wrong. I've removed it. Shorne 13:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd add that such critique exists, but first, there is no such thing "Marxist psychology", second, the criticists fail to acknowledge that (1) "human nature" to a significant degree rooted in social relations (2) it is demonstrated many times that "human nature" of the majority is easy to manipulate. Basically, I agree that this article is not a good place for detailed discussions of pros and contras, but the fact of such criticism should be mentioned. I am adding "other critiisms" sebsection, for brief remarks. Mikkalai 16:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind a statement of this criticism with the POV stuff and factual errors stripped out, but I'm puzzled that you inserted such a statement along with an instruction (commented out) not to discuss the matter in the article. Coming as it does at the end of the article, the criticism seems a good deal more decisive and important than it is. Shorne 18:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I changed slightly. Is it better now? I beleive the commenter out instruction clearly states its purpose: the issue is highly disputable and multifaceted, and leads far away from the main topic. So let's state the fact that such opinions exist, but if one wants to go into deeper detail, let them make a new page and feel free to proceed with properly referenced discussion: who thinks so and why, and who says that the former opinion is wrong, etc., etc. Mikkalai 19:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That entire section needs to be reworked, including your earlier insertions about economics, as several of us discussed above. You have pointed out three valid objections to the claim that Marxism does not take human nature into account. While I agree with you that we don't want long polemical wars in these articles, a short criticism of the criticism is appropriate. That's what we do in other articles. Shorne 19:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is a fact that there exists a criticism that Marxism does not take into account human nature. I'd say that Marx does indeed tackle psychology even though it is not stated as such by. Alienation and this stuff about being determining consciousness is most definitely psychology. Marx agreed that human nature was primarily rooted in or affected by social relations - the societies in which we were born, and the particular class one belongs to, along with other factors. In the capitalism there is sort of a debate in the article, because it is written relatively NPOV, which is good.Capone 23:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 'Human Nature' criticism of Marxism is a relatively wide-spread one among the Capitalist West, largely out of ignorance of Marx's actual ideas (in a similar vein to the common perception that under Socialism all wages are equal, that Communism is synonymous with Socialism etc.). Hence it ought definitely to be included in the article, just as crticisms of Capitalism (though not of Capitalist states of course) are included in the Capitalism article. However, we also need to include the justifiable fact that this can be considered to be a flawed argument on a number of levels: this argument tends to arise out of people brought up within a Capitalist environment/context and pre-supposes capitalism is engrained into the human conscience, in the same manner as a child who is brought up to be Christian and doesn't come across other religions believes that Christianity is a natural, engrained concept. Hauser

I think the reference to human nature should be accompanied by a link to the article human nature, on which I've bestowed some relevant editorial efforts. --Christofurio 21:07, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

The following is a spectacular example of POV at its most blatant.

"To such objections, communists reply that human nature is being misrepresented by capitalists. For example, under slavery, slave owners said blacks were lazy, stupid and that whippings were necessary for productivity. Thus, communists say under what they consider capitalist wage slavery, the same type of arguments are made as an excuse for the capitalists to expropriate surplus value from workers. In fact most opinion polls even in the USA show workers want more control over their work, which would indicate that human nature was that workers are against capitalist social structures, and prefer socialist and communist social structures where workers control the means of production.

"The argument about planning is without merit, because modern large capitalist enterprise is unimaginable without planning, the scale being comparable with a small communist state."

One might as well write, "To such objections, communists reply with an avalanche of point-missing tripe that proves that they don't have a clue what the objectors mean, or don't want to and can't confront the issues head on. Needless to say, all arguments by communists are without merit, and their inability to disambiguate the word 'planning' is a prime example of this." I wouldn't write that in an article, but it would be no more thoroughly POV than the above. --68.9.148.204 00:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)