Talk:Communism/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Communism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Censorship?

Again, 172, does this censorship and removal of information continue to demonstrate that one side prefers that certain information not allowed to be viewed?

(Gibby 20:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

No one is interested in 'censoring' your information on China's economic policies. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means that it is supposed to follow certain standards of relevance for including information in any given article. The information that you are interested in adding here is off-topic in the communism article, and more appropriate in articles related to economy of the People's Republic of China and Communist Party of China. Please take your comments to other articles where your concerns are more relevant. 172 20:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

172, I think it was rude of you to archive a discussion page during an on-going discussion. The edit comment reads "perhaps archiving all the off-topic soapboxing will make it go away?". Please do not do this again. The discussion page is for discussion. Please respect that. (BostonMA 22:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

they are perfectly relevant here. You have failed to demonstrate why they are not. (Gibby 20:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

This is an article on the ideology and political movement called communism, which is most notable as the purported ideology of Communist parties. The communism article is the most broad and general of literally thousdands of articles on Wikipedia related to (a) communist ideology (b) Communist parties (c) Communist regimes (d) discourses related to modern communist ideology. There must be clear criteria for determining what kind of information is relevant here and what kind of information is more fitting in a more specialized entry, or else this article will loose its focus and fail to serve as a helpful general entry to readers who are interested in learning only the general matters of 'who, what, when, where, why' of the subject.

On that note, your commentary on the ideology of a particular Communist party-- asserting that the practices of CPC are "contrary to original communist theory, and even communism as it has been practiced under regimes such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao" may be correct; but it is POV and off-topic here. Given the NPOV policy, it is not Wikipedia's position to evaulate the ideologies of individual political parties. Again, I urge you to take your observations to articles specifically focused on the Chinese economy and the CPC, where references with citations to commentaries dealing with the divergence of CPC ideology and practice from "original communist theory, and even communism as it has been practiced under regimes such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao" may actually be pertinent to the subject. 172 23:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

An article on the ideology of communism? Well if you allow small scale private farms, private buisness, and a money system you arent exactly following what communism was supposed to be about are you? What we have is communist branches of ideologies that are evolved from the original thing. Much in the same way market reform is taking root in present day "communist" countries. Each "ideology" attempted to mask their reforms as still being communist and with each one they moved further and further away from communisms theoretical basics. Seriously you have no point.

If you think you have a point, why not reduce the Lenninism, Stalinism, Maoism sections to links toward their respective pages, eliminate all refrences to the Soviet Union and just talk about the theory and maybe local communes in America or ISreal or something, because those are the closet thing to actual communism that has ever existed....again you have no point.

(Gibby)

Sigh. Of course the experiences of Communist party rule played a key role in the development of Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, etc. as separate braches of communism. We both know this. The communism entry is only supposed to offer a very cursory overview just laying out generalities concerning all the various different forms of "communism." Please go to the more specialized entries, which themselves do not go into as much detail on PRC economic reforms as you want the communism article to go into. 172 00:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

(Someone)

I think that it should be mentioned and linked. But not the full article in the Communism page. I think it should be an article of it's own.

Communists in power and the free market

Discussion on whether or not this section should be included...

Contrary to original communist theory, and even communism as it has been practiced under regimes such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, the People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, the People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy [1].

These Special Economic Zones have few restrictions upon businesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties, and a free price system. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. These Special Economic Zones are different than the State Capitalism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, because the SEZs allow for capitalists to build and expand their industries and private property, free from the control of the central government. SEZ's operate under market economy rather than the state capitalist top down command economy approach.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [2] It might be interesting to broaden this section with examples in North Korea and Vietnam. Electionworld 09:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it is different from state capitalism. China remains state capitalist, due to political suppression of dissidents. That remains a critical distinction in any "free market" economy whatsoever. Furthermore, yes, China is a major example of a communist country espousing free market ideals, but the current article is already cluttered enough. I could see a paragraph of this being sufficient, fitting under the "Communism today" section, to elaborate on already existing material. The concept of China having a free market is not restricted to China, many so called communist countries already have market economies. Therefore, it should be oriented less on the PRC on more about free markets in communist countries in general, the full explanation being at state capitalism, citing the PRC as an example. -- Natalinasmpf 09:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC) +

I aggree, China is not the only self described communist country that is implementing market reforms, attracting foriegn investment, lower import restrictions, and encouraging foriegn development. And because multiple modern communist countries are implementing these reforms, it should be included...afterall we've already shown the evolution to lenninism, stalinism, maosim...why not this "reformism"

And yes, Nati, china's SEZs are far different than State Capitlism. China runs 2 separate economies. 1 command economy 1 market economy (in the SEZs)...market economies are NOT state capitalism as none of the supply, demand, or price information is directed by the central government. (Gibby) Because that is not an ideology, and is covered in both state capitalism and communist state. It remains state capitalism because the government still economically represses its society directly (as opposed to insidiously with plutocracy). Ultimately, it still remains state capitalism because the internal flow within the country has not been lifted, and thus remains state capitalist. -- Natalinasmpf 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC) +

Well opponents of free markets label them an ideology and now its mixed with communists...sounds like it clears to me. +

Is it me or are the excuses for excluding this section constantly changing? (Gibby 20:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)) +

No, they are not. The reasons for excluding the section are that it is off-topic, irrelevant, POV original research. Please give it a rest. Information on the economy of China can be found in economy of the People's Republic of China. Information on the CPC can be found in Communist Party of China. Please give it up here. 172 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC) +

It is not POV, POV has been removed.

It is not Original Research. All the data is taken from respectable published sources (REad the freaking rulebook) +

It is not off topic it follows in line with the spirit of the page which is demonstrating how communist theory and ideology has changed over time

And the simple fact that this information is briefly covered does not adequatly explain why this should not be included as several sections in this page are not only included in other pages but have their own pages as well. +

Your refusal to allow this section is simple censorship. You dont want information counter to your own beliefs to be entered into this page for fear of people learning to disagree with your position. You are an intellectual coward who cannot fight facts on its own merits and has to hide behind perverting wiki rules to see intellectual competition removed +

(Gibby 20:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

You cannot be serious. I have no passionate opinions about this subject matter whatsoever. I could personally care less about the content of your section; and I don't think that any other editor has a strong ideological view on this topic, for that matter. However, I do have a strong opinion on the need to keep information in the communism article relevant to the topic, because I care about helping Wikipeidia develop along the lines of its goals. Please try to be civil-- and take your concerns to articles where they are not tangential-- such as economy of the People's Republic of China and Communist Party of China. 172 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

172, while I think that Gibby is being uncivil, he has a point. Why exactly is this section not relevant? --Pianohacker 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

See my comments above. 172 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We were doing fine without it a month ago, and I have explained (in archive 7) that it's redundant. Consider this, suppose I post in the United States article, an entire section about commenting about its welfare system and how it seems ironic if compared to the American dream, how it goes against the entire system of free enterprise, blah blah blah. Now, an entire section in a country article about its welfare system is already too much. A section for the entire purpose of making an observation of welfare when compared to other American concepts is even narrower....now, this is basically what the current section proposed to this article is. This article is a pretty general article, almost like a country-article, since it spans such a wide range of information. An entire section making this narrow observation (however accurate) would be disjunct and wouldn't flow, and then we would get laughs from critics and the Register if they ever decided to use this as an example against Wikipedia about the sheer pettiness and narrowness of our articles. Gibby: I think we will have less trouble, or even no trouble, if this is moved to "communist state" (and merged with existing material to cut redundancy), just see what the consensus is about that. Communist state is basically a child article about Communism, just as Maoism and Leninism is. -- Natalinasmpf 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf, you raise the argument that Wikipedia would be a laughing stock. I note that philosophy of Wikipedia is to present NPOV, to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". In my opinion, an NPOV encyclopedia has the potential to be vastly superior to existing encyclopedias which are decidedly not NPOV. Should the Wikipedia community take the POV that NPOV should take second place to the avoidance of ridicule? (BostonMA 23:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

which is perhaps why Electionwood suggested the addition of information regarding North Korean and Vietnamese reforms in this section. That only makes it more relevant than it already is (and it is relevant thanks to inclusions of lenninism maoism..etc. I dont know how many times I have to keep repeating this, but its clear you dont get it). (Gibby 21:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

and don't lie about your passions, you've got on your interests the Soviet Union, Russia, and George Keenan...I think thats a pattern! (Gibby 21:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

What proof do you have of these interests, and then again, what exactly do you mean? --Pianohacker 23:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It is in his bio or whatever he calls it on his user page. (Gibby)

Gibby, I know a little about the subject, granted. I make a living from teaching-- perhaps the motive on my part for learning about the subject is rent seeking? I don't have an ideological axe to grind. If someone on Wikipedia is expressing the POV that the practice of the CPC is contrary to communist theory, I can care less. I have no idea how it affects me personally; I have no idea if it is a challenge to my political views. The substance of your arguments doesn't affect me in the slightest, personally or ideologically. I just want this particular article to stay on topic. That's it. I want to accomplish this aim with as little disruption as possible, consuming as little time as possible. I'm sorry if I'm turning out to be surprisingly dull and unsophisticated; but you will have to deal with many other editors like myself, who are less passionate about the subject matter than about striving to uphold Wikipedia's content policies. 172 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont have an axe to grind other than teaching a couple people (you and nati) lessons in logical consistancy and factual correctness. THe section I have added, is relevant, and is only irrelevant in the minds of the logically inconsistant. You cannot attack my section and expect the ones that remain to continue to exist without the same logic coming back and attacking it.

To date no good excuse has come up for this sections deletion becasue they cannot hold up to logical examination.

POV Original Research Not Relevant Not part of the ideology Not enough google hits talked about on other pages.

Of course it's related to the subject. The criterion for including information here, however, is not simply that the material pertains somehow to communism. If that were the case, this article would be thousands of pages long. Wikipedia must pay attention to the encyclopedic principle of hierarchy if it is to be useable. Just take your observations to a more specialized article, then there will not be a problem. 172 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

market oriented reforms engaged by communist parties. Its very much apart of the page already. This is lenninsm. You allow it to remain.

Just cut the crap, allow it, and then actually make useful suggestions instead of being a PITA. (Gibby 08:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Gibby, give it up. If this dispute goes to arbitration, you are not going to win. There is a consensus against inserting your section; I am not the only one who is 'not allowing it to remain.' 172 15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

not one logically consistant reason why it should remain...not one. (Gibby 07:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

The Poor Objections to the FMC section

POV (There is no POV I've edited it relentlessly to remove any suspected POV, offer assitance if you can (editors with major complaints have failed to do so to date).
Original Research (this section does not constitute original research. Everything is verifiable through respected sources...which are even cited. More can be given if needed! Likely these people have problems with the selected sources or the person who ORIGINALY typed the section)Editors have also failed to give examples as to how this is Original Research other than to throw out this complain. Words have meanings...and so do rules. You cant make up stuff as you go along!
Covered elsewhere (so is lenninism, maoism, stalinism, the soviet union are not only mentioned elsewhere each their own pages. Market oriented reforms are barely mentioned, even when in its own page)
SEZs are state capitalism thus already covered in the page (SEZs are not state capitalism. State capitalism is command economy, SEZs are market economies. They are too seperate things and the SEZs and market economies of some present day "communist" countries is not actually included in the article)
Not relevant to communism (how is the fact that communist governments conducting market reform not relevant to communism as the ideology? Especially since the ideologies of communism included are ideological schools that have allowed monetary systems, private property, and a few other things that defy the basics of communism)
not enough google hits (title Free Market Communism had 178 google hits, more than some of the other section titles in the page)

Gibby

If market-oriented reforms are barley mentioned "even in its own page" then start 'in its own page.' It makes no sense to have an article on the general offering more detail on the particular than is offered on the particular in the article on the particular. 172 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

and...what is your objection to having this page linked to a new page which covers the subject more in depth...once again, we have Lenninism and company linked with pages on lenninism...

Again, no point.

(Gibby)

Suspected Original Research, "The modern world's first effort to build socialism"

The current text reads:

"In Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale, following the 1917 October Revolution, led by Lenin's Bolsheviks, raised significant theoretical and practical debates on communism among Marxists themselves."

Statements which attribute actions to "the modern world" are suspect as original research. After 48 hours have elapsed, (and obviously after the article is unlocked), I will edit this sentence, unless someone provides a verifiable source for the sentence or makes a request for more time to locate such a verifiable source.

I will replace it with the following text, unless convinced that another text is superior.

"The Russian 1917 October Revolution was the first time any party with an avowedly Marxist orientation, the Bolshevik Party, obtained state power. The assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks generated by a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement."

(BostonMA 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

This is just a matter of style, not original research or POV. Once the article. On that note, the style of the sentence should be modified, so as to avoid coming across as giving agency to non-human historical abstractions such as "the modern world." When the article is unprotected, I will change the prose in question to the following "... first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale in modern history... " Still, there's no reason to make a little style error out to be a bigger deal than it really is. 172 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, as far as I am concerned, your version is still suspected original research, and I will expect you to provide some sort of verifiable source.

Also, I disagree that the issue is not one of POV. You take the POV that an attempt was made (by whom? Stalin?) to build socialism. My POV is that Stalin used the political slogan of "buiding socialism" to advance certain ends, but that he did not actually attempt to build socialism, but rather something repulsive to socialism. (BostonMA 00:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Fine. Then the sentence can get changed to "... first purported effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale in modern history... " Who is making the claim to be building socialism is obviously the Bolsheviks in this context. 172 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Then the date should be changed from the 1917 October Revolution to the 1924 rise of Stalin's power, unless your claim is that the Bolsheviks were purporting to build socialism prior to that date. If that is your claim, I again, would ask for verifiable sources.

Huh? Their goal was building socialism before Stalin's rise to power. 172 00:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did the Bolhseviks have the goal of building socialism in Russia before Communist parties came to power in the West? I do not believe so. You may have a different opinion, and that would not be uncommon. However, commonly held views are often mistaken, (and in this case I think they are mistaken). That is why I ask for a verifiable source. (BostonMA 01:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

This point is kind of moot. Both Trotskyites and Stalinists wanted to see the revolution spread to the West, and they expected it to spread. The fact that it would not was revealed to them after the Bolshevik Revolution. Yes, they came to power in 1917 with the goal of building 'socialism' (whatever they claimed that meant to them). No one disputes this. 172 01:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would clarify things for me to tell you that in my opinion, the aim of the Bolshviks prior to 1924 was to build what they referred to as "the dictatorship of the proletariat", which is something quite distinct from socialism/communism. I agree that the Bolsheviks hoped to some day build socialism, but that is not the same as "... first purported effort to build socialism". Do you see? BostonMA

Yes, their view of socialism presupposed the dictatorship of the proletariat. But they were confident that the dictatorship of the proletariat would lead to the building of communism and socialism. You are right to maintain that their conceptions of the terms rendered them distinct. But I see no problem with the wording I proposed avove-- for clarity and brevity-- because it makes no reference to sequencing or time horizons. So it just skrits the issue of the discourses within Marxism at the time as to when the building of socialism was to begin. 172 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Your wording does indeed skirt the issue of what the Bolsheviks actually thought and said about their actions. I'm not sure that is a good thing for an article on communism. Clarity and brevity also apply to my wording. I think it is important to stick with the policy of strict accuracy and verifiable sources, because that will help to prevent bias. There is a danger, I think, that the current wording provides support for straw-man arguments against communism. Providing support for straw-man arguments, when one could just as easily be accurate gives the impression of non-NPOV. (BostonMA 02:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Not to quibble with your point, I fell compelled to point out that while one can say that the text does not contradict those 'straw-man arguments agaisnt communism,' it does not support those 'straw-man arguments' per se. For a general sourcebook writing an entry on communism, describing Bolshevik rule following the October Revolution as the first attempt in modern history to build socialism on a large scale is a concise and sufficient way of making an important observation. Reference sources like Wikipedia are simply not expected to go into the same level of detail on Marxist discourses on revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat as (say) Encylopedia of Marxism in their entry on communism. As I keep on telling Gibby, while I think your observations are valid, there's only so much material that the general article on communism can cover, with the article being left with a reasonable word count. Meanwhile, there are literally thousands of articles on the English Wikipedia related to communist ideology, Communist parties, Communist regimes, and discourses on Communism that lack editors, desperately needing the kind of attention that has been devoted in the past couple of days to the talk page of this article. In sum, we can get around to better specifying the particular sentence that you're calling into question-- as soon as the article is unprotected; for now, though, we'll have to wait for the matter involving Gibby to be resolved before this article can be unlocked. 172 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One significant POV is that socialism/communism was tried in Russia and failed. Another significant POV, probably a minority, is that that socialism/communism has not been tried. Stating that Russia was the first attempt to build socialism is an explicit denial of the second POV. You repeat your arguments about word count, conciseness, and avoiding detailed Marxist discourse. I think my proposed wording satisfies those concerns. It is short, concise, and does not contain detailed Marxist discourse. (It does break one long sentence into two, but that was a stylistic choice on my part). Your final point is that your proposed text "makes an important observation". The question of bias requires me to ask "who made this observation?". If it is the editor's observation, then it is original research. (BostonMA 12:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

Your final comment suggests that we table this discussion for now. I believe I have made a fair proposal [3] [4] for how to deal with text suspected of original research. You have not yet agreed to that proposal, but you have not made any other proposal for how we ought to procede in a way that avoids edit warring. If you do not feel that we have or can come to a consensus, perhaps we need an outside view to take a look. Please let me know what you think. (BostonMA 13:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

I'm not too interested in that second POV that you stated above myself, but I'll work with you in incorporating it into the text as soon as the article is unlocked. For now, though, this discussion will have to be tabled, as Gibby shows no sign of willing to be less disruptive, as we can see from the comments below. 172 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

OH now its about word counts? theres a new excuse? How many new excuses for deleting material you dont like can you come up with in a week?

I suggest you editors write this crap down so you can use it all at once next time you have trouble with information you dont like as opposed to this make-excuses-by-wire approach that you use right now.

I will be writing 'this crap' down if you force us to request arbitration against you. I dislike your rude behavior a lot more than your section, actually. I think that the same is the case with the other editors on this page. 172 08:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible Solution

Because we can't seem to agree on whether to include this section or not, how about a compromise? Maybe a small section that says, in effect, that China has diverged from true communism, but let the reader go to the Maoism page for more details? --Pianohacker 15:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the NPOV policy, it is not Wikipedia's place to assert outright that anyone has 'diverged from true communism.' Still, your proposed solution is what we have had in place all along. The article already mentions the market reforms, and already links to the relevant specialized entries. 172 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this buried in the history somewhere? I couldn't find it on the current version. --Pianohacker 16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I also was unable to find it (BostonMA 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

...China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy; and China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. 172 16:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, in that case, why not leave it like it is? Creating small, summary sections with links to the main articles is Wikipedia policy, isn't it? --Pianohacker 17:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Pianohacker, you are saying you think the article is okay the way it is? Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That particular section, anyway. --Pianohacker 19:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I misread Pianohacker's proposal as including a suggestion that the user go to the Maoism page for more details. Rereading it, I see that it says "let the reader go to...". I think an embedded "for more details see <link>" would be more useful, both for readers and as an offer of a possible solution. (BostonMA 16:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

I appreciate you suggestion. Still, this is a wiki. The hyperlinks are sufficient for reading readers to the relevant specialized entries. So we don't need to have the "for more details see <link>" note embedded in the text. BTW, I'd appreciate from you and the other users on this page in getting Gibby to adopt a more compromising tone. 172 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

^--evidence of unwillingness to compromise. It is not a bad or out of place section. It has no POV it is not original research and you have 0 consistent counterpoints on why it should not be not included while other sections are. (Gibby 07:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

The consensus is that your section needs work on style and tone before it is encyclopedic, and that it belongs in a more specialized entry than this one. When this page is unprotected, are you going to continue revert warring? If you intend to do so, let me know so that I can speed matters up and take your RfC to arbitration. 172 08:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also:

-(IMHO) it is somewhat hard to compromise on this; we either include the section or we don't.

-Gibby, you haven't been very polite or showing much willingness to compromise either. I could understand a little bit if you started out polite and became somewhat exasperated, but even when you first joined the discussion, I see Caps-lock and repeated exclamation points. If you had been ACTUALLY willing to compromise (and again, more polite), we might be more willing to view your opinions as worth considering. --Pianohacker (Talk) 18:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion is not editing in a manner that makes the section better. After this was duley noted you all changed your mind on why the section should be deleted. That reason has changed reasons several times now. A clear statement of an unwillingness to compromise on the subject. I have already demonstrated a willingess...an effort, to constantly update and change and better my additions with each criticsm including those whose criticism is simply deletion. I have worked hard on this section, most of the critics have done nothing to help. Again, that is not helping, that is not compromise, that is not editing. (Gibby 08:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

There are multiple reasons for removing them. Stating them one at a time is not a sign that anyone has changed his or reasoning. Give it a rest. 172 08:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

GIve it a rest? Against vandal thugs like you who keep information down and out by deleting it with your communist internet gang. Forget it. I will not rest until this page is consistant with the reasons who have given for the market sections deletion or the market section shall be included. (Gibby 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Ok, I'm going to weigh in with an opinion on this issue. Your use of the phrase "your communist internet gang" is not helping your case at all - it is, if anything, proving that the charge that you are levelling against others is something of which you yourself are guilty - namely, bias and militant POV-peddling. There has been no suggestion at all that your article is not relevant, only that it is mis-categorised. It is clear to me that a discussion on a particular hypocritical and fatally-flawed implementation of an abstract ideology should be placed in an article dealing with that implementation rather than in the main article on the ideology itself. Your continued insistence that it remain in an inappropriate section is evidence that your motivations for including it are political. --Dazzla 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why is it not relevant for an article on communism to note that the leading Communist party in the world adopted free market policies by creating free trade zones. The article is not really in my interest, so I won't edit it further, I just did a suggestion for a compromize. Good luck with the article. Electionworld 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It is already mentioned. ...China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy; and China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. This is a wiki. Readers can use the hyperlinks. Just click on Communist Party of China to find further details. 172 16:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same. It could perhaps be more precise, for example if it said China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy and has implemented considerable market reform in recent years. Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba, have also reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. The issue is not whether or not it should be mentioned but whether we should include a substantial and very specific section which most editors feel is outside the scope of this article. There is also the problem of the proposed section speculating about the relationship between market reforms and the theory and practice of communism. Such speculation is POV and original research. Mattley ^(Chattley) 16:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding the sentence as suggested by Mattley would be good. Electionworld 23:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

mediation

I have filed a request to mediate this ugly dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I doubt anyone wants to see this escalate to an ArbCom case if we can all solve this reasonably. Perhaps I am the unreasonable one, Gibby: then I beseech you to allow a mediator to handle this. -- Natalinasmpf 08:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I commend your effort. But Gibby's only seems to be getting more rude and disruptive. My expectation at the moment is that the way of making him less disruptive is taking him to arbitration. 172 08:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comunism as a economic system

   - Comunism - is not a political/government system

(unlike democracy, autocracy, monarchy etc. Forms_of_government ).

   - Comunism - is an economic system(opposed to Capitalism).

Since there may be democratic socialism (it would resemble Switzerland, in a way).

A communist party is a party that want to build communism, and that does not imply totalitarism(although i personally do not se any other way to create communism).

Any objections?

--JAlexoid 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, communism doesn't necessarily imply totalitarianism, but I don't think the article is trying to imply that anyway. -- Natalinasmpf 09:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Natalinasmpf. The term refers to a political movement and a social system advocated by the political movement. This is already made evident in the article. BTW, the term to use here would be "economic." "Economical" means something along the lines of 'affordable.' 172 09:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is does not to imply it, but maybe we could make a section to disperse public misconception(no thanks to our "highly educated" and "non-populist" politicians).

--JAlexoid 10:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Since there may be democratic socialism (it would resemble Switzerland, in a way)."

It would more closely resemble Sweden, but that's a side issue. Switzerland is arguably less socialist than most of the rest of Europe.

It really depends on who causes the Communist revolutionary movement the paid military or the people? And every one of them has been the military either undergroud or overtly with help from American, European Zionists international bankers and European occult who have been the cause of things like Communism and Nazism. Socialist Democracy and Fascist Theocracy should also go hand in hand, therefore more should be included about this little unknown corner of humanity. Stabinator 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Communism or communist ideology

Still to much focus "communist ideology", "communist parties" and "communist states", and to little about communism as a material movement. Sure, many "communists" were marxist-leninists like 60 years ago, but today they are nearly extinct. More left, council, insurrectionist and anarcho-communist perspectives in the article please. ;)

This is not the right article for you. On one hand, Marxist-Leninist Communist parties have ruled, and continue to rule in some cases, huge countries. On the other hand, 'left, council, insurrectionist and anarcho-communist' groups only rule internet chat rooms. There is a difference in relevance here. 172 05:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Impossible?

"Pure communism has never been implemented, since it is an impossiblilty" first of all, there is no exact definition of 'pure communism' as a form of society or political movement; second, there is no way to predict that something will 'never' happen, especially since this statement is not substantiated by any authoratative sources; third, pure communism, according to sociologist Max Weber is considered an ideal type, a definition that is accepted by many other sociologists. Therefore, defining the term as an 'impossibility' may not be the appropriate qualifier. Patrick 15:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a revision recently committed by User:GMB. I have reverted it. -- Natalinasmpf 15:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I've included a few references that explain the difference between current or recent Communist Party rule, as opposed to the Marxist Theory; this article does not refer to the Communist Party. It is without doubt that many have lost their lives under those regimes and that such a totalitarian state would never qualify as pure communism or Marxist communism.

I strongly agree with Freerick's conclusions mentioning Max Weber. Personally, I think that Weber's analysis of socialism and communism before his death in 1920 comes almost prophetically close to much of what happened in the Soviet Union, especially following Stalin's consolidation of power, both with respect to the establishment of the rigid administrative command economy, and with respect to political repression and economic stagnation. Overall, I also think that Weber has much more to tell us about socialism than Marx. The key difference, I think, is that Weber, unlike Marx, knew that revolution would not mean the withering away of the state. I always have Max Weber within arms reach of my desk, so on that note here's one of his more interesting predictions: When those subject to bureaucratic control seek to escape the influence of the existing bureaucratic apparatus, this is normally possible only by creating an organization of their own which is equally subject to bureaucratization .... Even in the case of revolution by force or of occupation by an enemy, the bureaucratic machinery will normally continue to function just as it has for the previous legal government. . . . Though by no means alone, the capitalistic system has undeniably played a major role in the development of bureaucracy. Indeed, without it capitalistic production could not continue and any rational type of socialism would have simply to take it over and increase its importance. (Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich (eds.), Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology / Max Weber. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978. p. 224.)

If User:Freerick were outlining an essay topic for a class on social theory, I would give him or her a high mark for his or her insightful critical read of both Marx and Weber. However, his or her work on the communism article on Wikipedia has to be totally reverted at this stage, as it is entirely original research and POV-- much like my own comments above expressing my agreement with Freerick's points. Further, there's also an issue with factual correctness and/or sources with Freerick's post. I'm not sure that Max Weber himself ever described communism as an ideal-type in the sort of way Freerick does. The analysis is clearly Weberian; but I'm not sure if it starts moving from describing Weber to describing works based on Weber's theories, or the other way around. At any rate, I hope that these issues can be sorted out, so that Freerick can start uploading his observations in articles where they are more pertinent, such articles related to social theory or critiques of Marxist ideology. 172 21:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, 172, I hope you realise that you are confusing User:Freerick with User:GMB. GMB made edits such as this. Freerick inserted the Weber reference. I haven't seen the book myself, but a footnote was included, and I presume that's an accurate reference that isn't original research. We do need more footnotes anyway. -- Natalinasmpf 21:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed my post above to correct the confusion. All and all, I like the inferences that came up in that edit war that occurred before I'd logged in, but proper footnoting notwithstanding, they were staying off topic into a study of social theory rather than the broad survey of communism suited for an article as general as this one. 172 22:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research, "Marx's theory had presumed...

The existing text states:

"Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place. Russia, however, was the poorest country in Europe, with an enormous, illiterate peasantry and little industry."

The first sentence, taken by itself is unobjectionable. However, the context clearly implies a contrast between what Marx's theory presumed and expectations of revolution in Russia. Statements purporting to draw out the implications of a theory are suspect as original research. After 48 hours have elapsed, I will edit this sentence, unless someone provides a verifiable source for the sentence or makes a request for more time to locate such a verifiable source.

I will replace it with the following text, unless convinced that another text is superior:

"Marx believed that socialism/communism would be built upon foundations laid by the most advanced capitalist development. Russia, however, was one of the poorest countries in Europe."

--(BostonMA 22:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

I see little difference, but I am inclined to ask a few questions: why do you feel the "little industry" should be removed? Is there any difference between "presumed" and "believed", other than nuances in meaning? Is not a large working class part of advanced capitalist development? -- Natalinasmpf 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My questions are the same as Natalinasmpf's. 172 22:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

How would you define "little industry"? Russia in 1917 had some of the largest metalworks in the world. The Putilov factory alone employed 40,000. (or 20,000 by some accounts). Was Russian industry smaller than, say the industry of Ireland or Spain, or Norway, Greece, or...? In fact the Russian working class was larger than the entire population of some industrialized European nations. I think what you mean to say is that the majority of the Russian population consisted of peasants. And, yes a large working class is part of advanced capitalist development.

The difference between writing about what Marx believed, and what "Marx's theory presumed" is that documents written by Marx are prima facie evidence of what Marx believed. To talk about what "Marx's theory presumed" requires inference. Who made that inference? A verifiable source, or the editor? In the case in point, the inference about what Marx's theory presumed, has in my opinion, no basis in fact, and is contradicted by the direct statements of Marx himself. See for example Marx and Engel's introduction to the Russian Edition to the Communist Manifesto, which I quoted when I brought up this issue previously. You are perhaps confusing "revolution" with "building socialism". (BostonMA 00:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

(1) Yes, Russia had some of the largest metalworks in the world before 1917. But as you point out, the vast majority of the population consisted of peasants. Further, a large share of industry was under foreign control, leading Western scholars many years later to describe Tsarist Russia as a case of "dependent development." Yes, Russia had a large industrial working class in terms of the sum total of its population, but not as a share of its total population when compared to the 'advanced capitalist development' of countries such as Britain at the time. On that note, there is a general consensus among both non-Marxist and Marxist scholarship on development viewing Russia's development before the revolution as somehow different from the 'advanced capitalist countries.' The non-Marxist literature, for example, is particularly engaged in the research agenda of the late Alexander Gerschenkron, who was noted for his work on the problems "relative backwardness" in the international capitalist system for "late-industrializers." Nevertheless, you are correct in pointing out that what exactly is meant by the description "little industry" in the text that you are calling into question above is problematic. It is touching on a relevant topic, as I'm sure that you can agree, but it is vague. I will try to make the sentence more specific. (2) :Re: To talk about what "Marx's theory presumed" requires inference. Who made that inference? Yes, it is an inference, so I suppose that technically a citation is required; still the view stated is one of the most commonly accepted view (perhaps coming close to an article of faith) in the relevant literature on Marxism among both non-Marxists and Marxists alike, and often found in some of the most general and basic brief write-ups on Marxism and communism, such as the edited volume of Marx and Engels put together by Robert Tucker, for example. BTW, I'm familiar with the introduction to the Russian Edition to the Communist Manifesto. That particular work seems somewhat harder to reconcile with prevailing assumptions about Marx's assumptions about Russia, I admit. It is quite an interesting primary historical document and well worth the read, so I'm glad to see that someone has finally mentioned it on a Wikipedia talk page. In total, the volume of Marx's writing on Russia is relatively small compared to his writings on so many other topics, and may appear contradictory over the years, as I'm sure we can both agree. At any rate, to close my perhaps excessively lengthy reply to your last post, my response is change the text in the article to your preferred wording, if you insist. Right now, the text in question is admittedly aligned with prevailing non-Marxist Western scholarship on Marx. I do not mind this alignment, as it is standard in just about all professionally written encyclopedias. But I now understand your point, and given Wikipeida content policies, I cannot really object to your proposed changes. BTW, to you mind if I ask about your background. You seem to know quite a lot about Marx's original works. So I am wondering if you are perhaps an academic whose work I may be familiar with. 172 07:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It is doubtful that you know me unless you live in Boston. I only have a Masters Degree, so, although I am a part-time lecturer, I am not a "real" academic. I do prefer to remain an anonymous editor at this point in any event.

Although you have agreed to, or at least "cannot really object to" my proposed changes, you did bring up something that I think is worth a response. You cite Tucker's book. I have both the first and second editions (c) 1972, and have just skimmed the prefaces and intros. I was searching for statements by Tucker supporting the notion that Marx's theory had presumed that revolution would occur earlier in the West than in Russia. As I said, I skimmed, so I could have missed something, but I did not find such a statement. I did not read all of the chapter prefaces, but I did read those in Part IV, "On Imperialism in India", and "On Social Relations in Russia". Tucker does say that Marx held the "assumption that it was the fate of non-Western societies like that of India to go the way of bourgeois development as seen in modern Europe". Tucker also draws a contrast between the fact that Capital was widely read in Russia, and "the Russian socialist movement was largely Populist (Narodnick), believing that in pre-bourgeois Russia there could be an early socialist revolution...". Drawing such a contrast suggests that Tucker inferred that Marx's theory presumed that socialist revolution would come earlier in the West than in Russia. I will get back to that in a moment. The most significant thing that I would want to point out, however, is that in the very article which Tucker has included in the anthology, "On Social Relations in Russia", by Engels, published in 1875, we read:

"It is clear that the condition of the Russian peasants since the emancipation from serfdom has become intolerable and cannot be maintained much longer, and that for this reason alone if for no other a revolution is in the offing in Russia"

What Engels says after this is also very interesting, but I wanted to stop to emphasize that Engels clearly does not suggest that the Russian revolution cannot occur before revolutions in the West. Now what Engels says next, I will greatly truncate, giving only the points I think are central.

"The question is only: what can be, what will be the result of this revolution?"...

"It is clear that communal ownership in Russia is ... moving towards its disintegration. Nevertheless, the possibility undeniably exists of raising this form of society to a higher one...without it being necessary for the Russian peasants to go through the intermediate stage of bourgeois small holdings. This however, can only happen if ... a proletarian revolution is successfully carried out in Western Europe."

My own POV is that Engels is saying that a revolution in Russia may come earlier or later than in the West, but that socialism cannot come earlier to Russia than the West. The results of an (early) Russian revolution would depend upon what happens in the West. (That is why I wrote earlier: "You are perhaps confusing 'revolution' with 'building socialism'". I apologize for the length of this discussion, and I hope that readers will not find the point I'm making too obscure. I think accuracy matters.

Given that no blocking objections have been raised, I will make my edits. (BostonMA 21:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Yes, you picked up the piece where Engels' predictions-- and I agree with your summary of Engels' 1875 On Social Relations in Russia-- I think turned out to me most on the mark. I think we both know the relevant literature, so we can be brief. The view that Marx was 'wrong about Russia' is the prevailing view among non-Marxists, though your view is supported by some evidence as is held by some Marxists. I hold the other POV, but there's little need for me to bore anyone and push my POV on the talk page; so, I'll just say go ahead with your changes, as they are a step, albeit a very subtle one, in making the article more "NPOV." 172 05:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Waiting for discussion

Dear 172, In a previous discussion, you stated that discussion the communism article needed to be tabled until the article was unlocked. [5] [6] [7] I did not agree that that discussion needed to be tabled for that reason, but in the interest of patience, I have waited. The communism article is now unlocked. More than that, you have made additions to the article [8]. I therefore assume that you are available to discuss the changes I suggested. Since it is the holidays, you may only be available sporadically, but I think 72 hours is a reasonable amount of time, given the length of time I have already waited. On the other hand, if you continue to post to wikipedia, without attempting to discuss the disputed text with me, then I will have to assume that you are no longer interested in further discussion.

Once again, my proposed change is to replace the text that reads:

The current text reads:

"In Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale, following the 1917 October Revolution, led by Lenin's Bolsheviks, raised significant theoretical and practical debates on communism among Marxists themselves."

with the following text:

"The Russian 1917 October Revolution was the first time any party with an avowedly Marxist orientation, the Bolshevik Party, obtained state power. The assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks generated by a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement."

(BostonMA 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

Just be patient. Other users are proposing other changes. I mean, you just forced me into an edit conflict with a user proposing a larger change. 172 21:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

BostonMA, give me ten minutes now. I'm going out for a cigarette and more coffee. 172 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow BostonMA, you missed the big spectacle. ;) -- Natalinasmpf 21:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Which spectacle would that be? (BostonMA 10:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

The entire episode with GMB. -- Natalinasmpf 13:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. [9] 172 22:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you (BostonMA 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

Human rights

I think these catagories are appropriate, altho perhaps they are mkore suited to state communism. Thoughts? Sam Spade 09:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, they are not. This is the article on the ideology and the political movement. To borrow another maxim, 'ideologies don't kill people, people do.' 172 09:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

By that reasoning, Hitler is not responsible for WWII deaths, just the people who followed his orders did. After all words don't kill people.--Silverback 09:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Hitler was a living individual with agency. Communism is an abstration existing in the realm of ideas, which only have a causal effect through human agency. The categories on repression and human rights abuses belong in articles related to particular Communist regimes, not articles related to political theory or ideology. I brought up Nazism because this goes for Nazism as well as communism, regardless of how much we may or some others here dislike these particular movements. 172 10:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nazism rejects human rights, as do all totalitarian regimes. Sam Spade 10:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Not always avowedly. In particular, the Soviet Union signed off on the Helsinki Accords, which signified a commitment to human rights in their official ideology, however disingenuous I'm sure that we both considered their commitment to be. Please keep these categories in articles on particular instances of political repression or instances of repression widely regarded as human rights abuses, such as Holocaust and Great Purges. 172 10:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

172, Communism happens to give a very nice payoff matrix that makes human rights abuses possible. The system allows for it and does not check the rationality of ambitious people. (Gibby 09:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Suspected Original Research, "Under these circumstances,..."

The existing text reads:

Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the communists, according to Marxian theory, to create a working class itself.

This text is suspected "original research". The statement purports to inform us what Marxian theory says about the circumstances surrounding the Russian Revolution. What is in question is: who drew the necessary inferences?

I am not sure what the original editor/author of this line had in mind. Perhaps he/she could explain a bit. However, unless a verifiable source is provided for this line, or a request made for time to find a verifiable source, I will, in 48 hours, delete this line. If an editor can suggest a suitable substitution, I will substitute rather than delete. (BostonMA 21:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

I think it means that Marx says there has to be a (substantial) working class in order for revolution to take place. Hence, the conclusion is that the Bolsheviks had to create a working class in order to commence a revolution. Which goes along with their rather Machiavellian nature. -- Natalinasmpf 22:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A few questions.

Do you want this text or something similar to be in the article?
If so, do you have any verifiable sources to support the idea behind this text?
Are there alternative texts that you would suggest.

(BostonMA 22:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Actually, I never came across this view before, so I have very little problem if you excise it, only that I thought there must have been good reason it was included; so I tried to rationalise it. I will await the other's opinions. -- Natalinasmpf 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no-one has provided verifiable sources, nor asked for time to do so, nor proposed an alternative text, I will delete this line. --BostonMA 17:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research, "For this reason..."

The existing text reads:

For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks had opposed Lenin's communist Bolsheviks in their demand for socialist revolution before capitalism had been established.

This text is suspected "original research". The statement purports to inform of that the "reason" the Mensheviks opposed Lenin's revolution is to be found in the paragraph above, which paragraph has been, or is likely soon to be significantly modified from the original. What is in question is: who drew the inference necessary to assert the cause of the Menshevik's opposition?

Unless a verifiable source is provided, or a request made for time to find such a source, I will, in 48 hours edit the text. I will

remove "For this reason", so that the sentence begins with "The socialist Mensheviks..."
remove the word "had", so that the sentence reads "The...Menshiviks opposed..."
change the words "Bolsheviks in their demand" to "Bolshevik's plan"
change the words "before capitalism had been established" to "before capitalism was more fully developed."

I'm not 100% happy with the new wording, and would be happy to discuss wording further. (BostonMA 22:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Support. Actually, if the above section is removed, this has to be totally reworded to the fact that Mensheviks opposed the Bolshevik concept of having a small elite cadre of professional revolutionaries in alliance with the dictatorship of the proleteriat, preferring to have widespread collective activism. They didn't oppose them for declaring revolution before "creation of a working class" was established. Rephrase totally. -- Natalinasmpf 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed text?

Do you have a verifiable source supporting the idea that the Mensheviks had a greater affinity for widespread collective activism than the Bolsheviks?

-- BostonMA 23:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought that was general knowledge, but I'll go dig it up. (I mean, the Bolsheviks were more elitist than the Menshevisk were, hence their Machiavellian nature). -- Natalinasmpf 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a good source here [10]. I didn't find an exact quote but I think there is enough info here to make your conclusion and even add information on the subject. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 05:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I read your source [11], but rather quickly. I don't think it NPOV, I don't think it is generally recognized, and I think it contains quite a few inaccuracies. But for the moment, that is an aside. I did not find in it, during my quick reading, a statement that the Mensheviks had a greater affinity for widespread collective activism than the Bolsheviks. Drawing such a conclusion from that reference would seem to require "original research".

The reference does include the statement:

"The Mensheviks, in both cases, leaned toward a broader membership; the Bolsheviks did not."

If you rewrote the text you wish to include, you might be able to rely upon this statement as a source. However, I think that statement is somewhat misleading. In the period between the final split between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1912, and the beginning of the war in 1914, the Bolsheviks recruited more workers and led more strikes than the Mensheviks. From the start of the war until the February Revolution, the Bolsheviks lost popularity. However, after the February Revolution, the Bolsheviks again began recruiting workers and leading demonstrations, strikes, etc. and soon far outstripped the Mensheviks in working-class membership. --BostonMA 14:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

But that's not party membership per se. Many of the workers who supported the Bolsheviks weren't actually in the party, especially in terms of oppurtunities for leadership or promotion. -- Natalinasmpf 23:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That is somewhat of a non-argument for this claim. The claim is that the Mensheviks leaned toward a broader membership than the Bolsheviks. The membership statistics don't bear that out.

Party membership by faction:

April 1906 (Fourth Congress)

Bolsheviks 13,000 Mensheviks 18,000

1907

Bolsheviks 43,143 Mensheviks 38,174

Feb. 1917

Bolsheviks 10,000 Mensheviks ?

April 1917

Bolsheviks 40,000 Mensheviks 100,000

Aug 1917

Bolsheviks 200,000 Mensheviks 200,000

Oct 1917

Bolsheviks 350,000 Mensheviks 200,000

Percentage of delegates who were workers elected to 1917 Conferences of Bolsheviks and of Mensheviks:

Bolsheviks 40% Mensheviks 20%

-- BostonMA 00:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Since the only verifiable source offered does not support the existing text, and since no alternative text has been suggested, and since the only source offered qualifies as a Dubious Source and is contradicted by membership statistics, I will make the changes that have been proposed. --BostonMA 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

implementations of economics

Well, this article barely discusses any ways to implement an economy based on communist ideology, not even things like a planned economy or a command economy, (which a gift economy would sit by side by side). Should there not be a mention somewhere in the article? The introduction perhaps isn't the right place, but somewhere in the opening might be good. -- Natalinasmpf 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, hello? If no one is going to comment on it, I'll just follow through with what template:sofixit tells me. -- Natalinasmpf 19:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

dictatorship of the proletariat

A recent edit [12], introduces the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" into the text. Whatever the editor's POV, I believe that this is both accurate and improves the article as a whole. Since an edit has been made, I would like to improve upon it. Marx and Engels expressed their opinion that a transition period would be required between capitalism and communism (including "the lower stage of communism," i.e. socialism), and that this transition period must be a "dictatorship of the proletariat". The current text suggests that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the same as socialism. That is not an uncommon usage, and was certainly used in the Stalinist period. However, it is not appropriate when referring to Marx. Therefore, I am revising the text. (I would have gotten to this text anyway, but since it is under active edit, I thought I'd add my input.) -- BostonMA 23:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Remention Leninism?

The current text reads:

According to Marxism, this process may be initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, then passes through a transitional state period known as the dictatorship of the proletariat as advocated by Leninism.

The prior text [13] read:

According to Marxism, this process may be initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, then passes through a transitional state period known as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Both versions begin with the statement "According to Marxism", but the current version, in addition says "as advocated by Leninism". I think the "as advocated by Leninism" is redundant, unless one wants to take the view that Leninism deviates from Marxism on this question, and it makes the sentence very ackward. --BostonMA 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That was in the original versions, well Leninism has to be mentioned somewhere, and I couldn't find a better place. Marxism and Leninism are slightly distinct, but you can rephrase it as you wish. -- Natalinasmpf 01:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine

Ultramarine, you removed the following text: While anticommunists applied the concept of "totalitarianism" to these societies, many social scientists identified possibilities for independent political activity within them, and stressed their continued evolution up to the point of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe during the late 1980s and early 1990s. [14] The text that you removed is an important summary in development in Western academic Soviet study literature from the 1960s to the 1980s, specifically the shift in perspectives for understanding Soviet politics from the "totalitarian model" to various other models such as "bureaucratic pluralism," "institutional pluralism," "bureaucratic authoritarianism," and "post-totalitarianism." For an early influential early critique of the totalitarian model, see H. Gordon Skilling, "Interest Groups and Communist Politics," World Politics, Volume 18, Number 3, April 1966, pp.435-451. Other critiques of the "totalitarian model" followed, questioning the applicability of the concept of totalitarianism to the post-Stalin period; some even questioned the applicability to the 1930s, though I personally thought that some of those critiques went too far. This attempt to was led by Arch Getty in his Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered: 1933-1938, (Cambridge University Press, 1985). Ultramarine, the passage you removed was one of the few brief summaries of the relevant academic literature on Communist politics found in the article. Please do not remove the text again. 172 08:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I will remove until you cite sources in the article like everybody else is expected in Wikipedia. Talk page claims are uninteresting. Ultramarine 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are going to take the time to remove it, take the time to insert the footnote, which I essentially gave you above. 172 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your claim, you give sources. I will give you some time to cite sources before removing it. Ultramarine 08:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I already did cite sources. I mean no disrespect, but let me know if you have a hard time understanding English. 172 08:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, cite sources in the article, not in discussion pages. You like everybody else is expected to follow Wikipedia policy. Again, I will give you a short time to cite sources before removing the text. Ultramarine 08:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, you could say, "please insert a footnote." If you try being nice you may find that you may get your way more often. 172 08:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, you could avoid saying "let me know if you have a hard time understanding English". Ultramarine 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean that as an insult. I simply wanted to know if it would help for me to rewrite my initial statement and make it easier to understand. 172 08:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

talk

Communism never became a popular ideology in the United States, either before or after the establishment of the Communist Party USA in 1919. ...What point is there in simply mentioning that there was a communist party in america? A lot happened in this time period. Simply saying "there was a communist party in US" was very poor writing. This should either explain why in at least *some* detail or just not elaborate at all.

Communism never became a popular or even accepted ideology in the United States. ...This is clear and it has meaning. An explanation isn't needed at all, if the reader wants to learn why they know very well how to research it.--So Hungry 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "accepted". Holding communist views is tolerated in the United States today. Plus, the reference citation is just horrible. A references section should never tell you to "see something for this, see something for that" - it should just be a reference to a work. -- Natalinasmpf 04:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes... Altough saying "never became a popular ideology" is not accurate. this is difficult to accurately sum up in even a few sentances... let alone 1 phrase... I'm thinking that maybe this should just be a simple "Communism never became a popular nor accepted ideology in the United States.--So Hungry 00:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

images

There are no images in this article. I suppose we need some. I guess this is why this article seems to be run-down, anyway. -- Natalinasmpf 04:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

ISBN number

I've converted what we pathetically have for references to footnotes, including splitting a footnote into two as they cited two different books. I however, need the ISBN number for this particular reference: "Interest Groups and Communist Politics." World Politics, Volume 18, Number 3, 435-451 - is there one, or some sort of standard that this is referred by, because it would be preferable. -- Natalinasmpf 05:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Opinion requires attribution -- "the Bolsheviks found themselves without a program..."

The existing text states:

In seizing power, the Bolsheviks found themselves without a program beyond their pragmatic and politically successful slogans "peace, bread, and land," which had tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War and the peasants' demand for land reform.

The assertion that the Bolsheviks found themselves without a program (with qualifications) is an opinion. As such, if it is to remain, it needs to be attributed to someone. If there is an editor who believes this statement is important to the article, please provide a source, so that it may be re-written as "According to X, the Bolsheviks found themselves" or something similar. If no sources are provided within 48 hours, or a request made for time to obtain such sources, I will edit the line to something like:

The Bolsheviks successful rise to power was based upon the slogans "peace, bread, and land" and "All power to the Soviets", slogans which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.

Alternative suggestions for text are welcome. --BostonMA 18:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed a POV to say they were "without a program", but one can consider that whatever program they drew up beyond "peace, bread and land" at least immediately after October 1917 could be considered vague or abstract, although not "without". Ie. they didn't have a clear economic policy until the implementation of war communism, and eventually, the New Economic Policy. -- Natalinasmpf 19:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say they didn't have a clear economic policy until the implementation of war communism? Would it not also be POV to say that the program of the Bolsheviks was vague or abstract? Compared to what? If you are interested in this section, perhaps you could clarify for me what you mean by vauge or abstract. --BostonMA 21:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

They only had a campaign agenda before war communism, IIRC, they didn't immediately start on a planned economy or a command economy until they implemented war communism. I suppose before the implementation of war communism one could call it "all talk, no action". -- Natalinasmpf 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "all talk, no action" seems to me to be original research. You are welcome to search for a verifiable source supporting the idea that the Bolsheviks' actions were sluggish in comparison to their rhetoric in the period between the October Revolution and the civil war. However, I would very much believe that such a source would be highly POV. Another POV would point out that the Bolsheviks urged, in their own words, caution, avoiding a headlong rush, order, measured steps etc. [15]. Now a critic might argue that the measures that the Bolsheviks did call for were in fact a headlong rush. However, the phrase "all talk, no action" suggests that the Bolsheviks avoided taking measures for which they had been calling when they were able to take action upon such. A reasonable question to ask is which measures those might be? --BostonMA 01:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well for one, what economic changes did the Bolsheviks make after the October Revolution before war communism? Nearly none, they left it as status quo (political-wise however, it was much different: they dissolved the Duma, etc.) So clearly, they didn't formulate an economic policy, not even any kind of central planning, until war communism. That is to say, war communism was their first non-trivial economic change. -- Natalinasmpf 06:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for delaying responding to you. I would be happy to give you another 24 hours to find verifiable sources if you wish to use that time. One person's "no economic changes" happens to be another persons "draconian inroads into the rights of private property". If the Bolhseviks had done nothing else during the period in question, they decreed that all landed estates should be seized by peasant committees. Much of heavy industry and transport was also either seized or voluntarily nationalized during this period. I do not know what percentage that was, and I am fully aware that a very large number of smaller enterprises were not nationalized until the civil war. If you would like to make the point that anarchists have criticized the Bolhseviks for the pace of expropriations, I have no objections, although I'm not sure this paragraph is the best place for it. However, I would still ask for verifiable sources. --BostonMA 22:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Since sources have not been provided, I am making the changes per above. --BostonMA 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Memorial

In 2005, there began to be the first serious talk in the United States of erecting a Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, DC. Despite the historic anti-communism of that country, it is unclear whether such a monument would ever be allowed to remain in existence over the long term.

I think this is an inappropriate addition to the page -- and unsourced. As such I have put it here pending both consensus to include it and a source. If you are the one who keeps adding it, please mention here why you think that it is vital that it is included. - FrancisTyers 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A further note to User:71.255.215.128 and User:Kikodawgzz (who are possibly the same person) you should look at the policy page for the three revert rule. - FrancisTyers 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I simulatneously moved the section out of the lead ot the "Criticisms of Communism" section as FrancisTyers made his changes. I think the memorial may have a place in the article, but definitely not in the lead. Also, regarding another users comments in their edit summary "communists need to know about this" is POV and not a good reason for including information on the memorial--Bkwillwm 16:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC).

I agree that this is an inappropriate addition. There are plenty of memorials to victims of communism in countries where it's rather more relevant than in the US. And it's not Wikipedia's job to rally adherents to political causes. Palmiro | Talk 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please take this content to anti-communism. If this article were to mention every similar condemnation of communism, it would be thousands of pages long. The mention of the memorial in Washington is out of the scope of this article. 172 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibby, again

This needs to be discussed first. I suggest he look at Wikipedia:summary. This is going to incite another dispute again. -- Natalinasmpf 05:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

TO BE INCLUDED

To date no logically consistent argument has been made as to why this section should not be included. Arguments made so far have been proven inadequate because those same arguments can be made against the article as it currently stands, and thus, should be subject to the same deletion as the following section has.

Market Reforms of the Modern Communist

Contrary to communist theory proposed by Marx and Engles and later adapted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao the People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, the People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy [16].

These Special Economic Zones have few restrictions upon businesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties, and a free price system. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. These Special Economic Zones are different than the State Capitalism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, because the SEZs allow for capitalists to build and expand their industries and private property, free from the control of the central government. SEZ's operate under market economy rather than the state capitalist top down command economy approach.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [17]

Several other self proclaimed communist countries have also made pro market reforms in the last few decades including Vietnam.

Discussing anything with you guys has proved worthless. You have shown little evidence of logical consistancy with your arguements and even less evidence that you are actually willing to work with anyone but yourselves.

(Gibby 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

We've already read your personal essay. Our minds are not going to change, no matter how many times you spam it on the talk page. Market reforms are already mentioned, liked to relevant articles on the subject matter. That is sufficient in a survey as general as the one that this article is supposed to offer. 172 05:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn’t know intolerance and stubbornness were key attributes for editors at Wiki...but I shouldn’t expect that much from left wing teachers who have shown a penchant for deceptive presentation of information(Gibby 06:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Sure. 172 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibby, couldn't you accept my mediation proposal, first? Can't this be worked out separately? -- Natalinasmpf 06:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You havent even bothered working this out internally, getting your thugs to vandalize the page constantly by deleting without discussion is not editing. I will not accept any form of mediation with you making a circus out logic and wiki rules. (Gibby 08:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Redundancy

There are several areas that need to be seriously edited.

First we talk about communism in general with spattered refrences to the soviet union, marxism, lennin and stalin, then we go into a section on the soviet union which has more of the same, then sections on marxism and even stalinism which have by now been covered twice already. We finish with a section on communism today which is primarily about soviet russia post stalin including a sentence on marxist revolutionaries (Who as of this time and place are of little signifigance) but despite all this redundancy and poor organization there is still heavy resistance to a small non redundant section on market reforms by communist countries.

what gives? (Gibby 06:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

The last section is essential for summarizing the events surrounding the collapse of most Communist regimes and the survival of a handful of others between 1989-1991. It also deals with the fact that while Communist parties still rule China, Vietnam, and Laos, market reforms have been enacted. Your section, however, is an off-topic tangential essay on the point of market reforms in China arguing that the policies of the Communist Party of China are "contrary to communist theory proposed by Marx and Engles [I think you mean "Engels"] and later adapted [I think you mean "adopted"] by Lenin, Stalin, Mao." 172 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

no i mean adapted because they did not adopt they took the theory and perverted it to their own uses...which to me is no surprise but that is another story. The whole article is highly redudant and poorly organized. (Gibby 06:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

See Wikipedia:Summary. The first part is a lead section, then proceeding to detail its history and evolution. Not terribly organised, in any case. -- Natalinasmpf 06:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibby 3RR

As of now Gibby has made four reverts and five attempts to reinsert his personal essay on Chinese market reforms against consensus. 1 2 3 4 It is clear that he still has not decided to be any less disruptive and respectful of consensus. 172 06:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

sorry dudeman, i have not made any reverts. I have made edits to try and satisfy complaints, You will see each time I have edited the content and tried to change things up to make it appropriate. you have nothing on me...but like I said, Wiki admins dont follow their own rules. (Gibby 06:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

oh and its no personal essay, you are just a sore loser with no ability to rationalize an arguement on his or her own. please for godsake come up with something! Tell me where you teach, I'll even come visit you to argue with you in person!!!!!!! (Gibby 06:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Re: Tell me where you teach, I'll even come visit you to argue with you in person!!!!!!! No thanks. I don't like being tortured. And the propostion confirms all the reasons for my decision to stay anonymous on Wikipedia. 172 06:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

real reason = don't want to be embarrased by someone who might make better points than them in front of their impressionable students (Gibby 06:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Sure. If that thought makes you happy, by all means, believe it. 172 06:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have nominated him at WP:AN/3RR, since it would be a bad thing to block someone one is in a dispute with. Gibby is obviously wikilawyering. See on WP:3RR - Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.. It's also a preventive, not penal measure, and is meant to ensure harmony. I rest my case. -- Natalinasmpf 06:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like horribly worded Wiki laws...because every edit undoes the edit of a previous editor because they have indcluded in their definition "adding new" material. What crap. Everything is a violation for whoever deems it so...alls it takes is a few admins on your side (since they are really not impartial at all!). At anyrate, there were no reverts made on my part, I was not undoing something he did, I was improving the article by improving my edit in an attempt to remove ground from the complaints (As if they had any ground to begin with) (Gibby 06:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

No, we don't have laws, we have policies. In fact, ideally, we shouldn't have electric fences - ie. see Wikipedia:Don't be a dick and WP:IAR, but policies exist to exert some hardline sense. In any case, Wikipedia is a community, not a state. We strive towards harmony, not de jure technicalities. -- Natalinasmpf 06:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki needs dicks, it needs dicks to fuck the assholes (if you saw Team America you know what I'm talking about) who keep deleting information because they dont like what is presented but offer no clear or well reasoned arguement as why it should be offered...that means stoping spinmasters like yourself and 172 who make sure carefully edited material makes it through.(Gibby 06:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

btw, there is no harmony in deleting material with no discussion. period (Gibby 06:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Nor is there harmony in inserting dissonant material that disrupts the flow of the article. The material is contested - its inclusion is determined by consensus. The onus rests on the includer, generally, in any case, you still have violated the three revert rule. I'll let another admin decide that, for your benefit. It is not that we "don't like what is presented" or that we have a vested communist interest (in any case, any form of censorship would hurt my cause, even supposedly favourable censorship), but that it is disharmonious in terms of style and presentation. Again, I point to Wikipedia:Summary, as well as remind you of the fact that empty vessels make the most noise: the one making the best arguments do not have to emphasise their victory. No, I do not watch ignorant films like Team America. :-) -- Natalinasmpf 07:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

this article needs no help in disrupting the flow, it has no flow to begin with! How do you go from evolution of modern communism while stopying at Troty then going on to something else which is clearly part of the evolution then adding mao as a subsection of something that should already be a subsection of the evolution of modern communism.

you have a vested interest in making sure that people who read about communism don't see that most communist leaders have adapted market reforms to sustain their economies. I'm not even bothering including the very factual information that communism in and of itself is not a sustainable system, I'm just mentioning the very visible and undisputed facts that communists are instituting market reforms all over the world!!!!!! and these are reforms which petty communists like yourself dont want to be made known! (Gibby 07:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

Team America is an example of a film that economic freedom brings to people. Try making a film like that in any communist country past or present and see those filmakers disapear! Communism, afterall, is only sustainable at the end of a gun barrel. But thats another story wholey unrelated to this article :P (Gibby 07:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

What? Are you kidding me? Common knowledge of the PRC's bastardisation of communist ideals is ... common. It's not that I do not want it to be known, it's known in articles relating to the PRC. I want the article to look professional. -- Natalinasmpf 07:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't have stated a better reply myself. 172 08:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

professional? You've got so many things repeated, sections out of order, and a bad case of denial when it comes to reasons why a section on communist market reforms should not be included among the revisions and evolutions constantly repeated in this horrible article. (Gibby 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Whatever problems there are with this article, the consensus is that your section is not going to help. Please give it a rest. 172 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

POV-section

I have tagged Gibby's section with the POV-section tag because it asserts Russia is a communist country. It is not, among several other NPOV violations. It is currently not the ruling party in any case, which clearly distinguishes it as a non-communist state. Although I think it will eventually be deleted, here it remains tagged for now. -- Natalinasmpf 07:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I noted communist led country. To call Russia a communist country is innaccurate but to not include it among nations with communist leadership is also inaccurate. Words have meanings and I have tried to carefully select appropriate words.

At the midpoint of market reforms communists took a great deal of control of the Duma and forced a vote of no confidence against the young market reformers. The fact is Russia had a heavy communist influence upon their market reforms (hardliners versus reformers, they were all essentially communist party members to begin with). This is all factual.

Next, I think it would also be innaccurate for us to assume that all communist countries must be one party countries...this gives a POV (though seemingly accurate) portrayal of communism as a totalitarian ideology. I think my use of the word communist led is thus most appropriate and NPOV, which may portray communist countries as multi party or single party states.

Furthermore, this is just another tenuous arguement made to delete a perfectly legit section. (Gibby 07:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC))

NPOV

Discussion on clean up and NPOV.

I beleive that the redudant sections in this page and sections that go beyond the breadth of communisism (While covered elsewhere) lend to a POV given that certain other information is purposfully deleted.

Your essay on "free market communism" keeps getting purposfully deleted by consensus because "free market communism" is not an ideological banner within communism such as Stalinism or Maoism. This article is for describing the ideology and political movement, making reference to economic policies of communist really only to guide readers to the related entries. This is not a legitimate NPOV dispute. Please stop inserting the tag. 172 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You write that Gibby's edits are deleted by consensus. I do not believe there is consensus on this matter. Quite the opposite. I believe there is an active dispute. Now consensus may not always be reached, and in that case Wikipedia operates by super-majority. However, I believe it is inappropriate to refer to the current situation as one in which there is a consensus.

Everything is ideological!!! And its not the title you are upset about its the facts. The fact is communist governments have resorted to market reforms, this is the final evolution (perhaps forever perhaps so far, i'm not saying) but you have provided basic communist principles, communist evolutions to Lennin, Stalin, Mao, the later Soviet Union...EVEN PERISTROIKA!!!! (btw, that was an economic program) FOR GOD SAKE, you have no consistancy with your complaints, you include all these economic programs and diversions from communisms originally accepted theory but refuse to take the one that is the furthest from that origin...the only one that stands in complete contrast to all others (for good reason but thats beside the point). The point is, if everything else stays, so does that section.

Your refusal to allow it, while allowing all others is proof that a certain POV exists in this page. (Gibby 08:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

NPOV on the Hayek part? Where did you get your PhD? What a joke you are! Hayek wrote a book called the Road to Serdom in which he explained a relationship between economic freedom and civil/political freedom also known as human rights. History has shown that communist regimes have engaged in gross human rights violations with figures ranging from 100 million to 300 million. These are facts, the POV is the deletion of facts you don't like. Put 2+2 together, do I have to do it for you every time? (Gibby 08:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Oh and once again, a minor complaint about a single sentence and you delete entire paragraphs. I call BS on you 172, you just don't want this information presented your just too chicken to admit it because you know that you're violating the rules. You dont want this information admitted. (Gibby 08:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Please, there is not need to rant. Chill out. Of course I am familiar with Road to Serfdom. I've even assigned it a number of times over the years to students. The issue that a number of other editors and I have with you is your style. You are stating outright in the article that "history has proved Hayek right." Whether or not that claim is correct is not the issue. Wikipedia has no business asserting that "history" has "proved" any individual author correct. Wikipedia can cite what certain authors have stated about Hayek's work in their reviews; but Wikipedia cannot on its own authority speak on behalf of "history" because of the NPOV policy. And if I didn't reply to some of your other remarks, please reformulate them more calmly next time. It's hard to respond to so much shouting at once. 172 08:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Hayek was proven right not only by historical evidence but by data gathered by the Wall Street Journal, Heritage Foundation, and Fraiser Institute that demonstrates the relationship between economic freedom and human rights. If you have a problem with the framing of the sentence, the better solution is to offer a suggestion to fix it or fix it rather than deleting it. Your deletion is the proof that you dont want to work with anyone that doesnt agree with your own assesments. (Gibby 08:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

No, but it is indeed the case that I do not want to work with anyone who disregards the NPOV policy. You can say, with citations, that publications by the Wall Street Journal, Heritage Foundation, or Fraiser Institute have claimed that the data that they have gathered vindicate Hayek. But Wikipedia does not recognize you as an oracle speaking on behalf of history. You can make a statement asseting that "history has proven X right about Y" in an argumentative essay, but not in an NPOV encyclopedia. 172 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it together for you. Hayek said if you lose economic freedom you lose political freedom. Communism was a clear loss of economic freedom. As history has progressed it has been made clear that communist countries have seriously violated human rights. Thus, history has indeed provided empirical support for Hayeks thesis. What I said was not only accurate but worded much better than anything currently in this page. I didnt say history proved him right (which it did) I said historical evidence supports his claim. (Gibby 17:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

should give you plenty to read for now (Gibby 09:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

I've seen all of it. In the article you are going to have to attribute specific conclusions to specific articles and authors. You can report, e.g., a "report by the Heritage Foundation by X found Y" and insert an online link to an article as an inline citation, or a footnote. I am not interested in challenging you ideologically. I am just interested in getting you to learn how to write in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia, which is going to be much different from the style that is suited for an argumentative essay. 172 09:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

These websites do not directly discuss the relationship between economic and personal freedom. If you (Gibby), wish to include information on this subject, please give a suitable reference that directly states the information you are trying to add. The relationship is not so clear that it can be stated without qualification. Singapore, scores highly in these economic freedom indices, but has a horrible political and civil liberties record. It may be an outlier, but, its an example of why the relationship between economic and personal freedoms is not indisputable. Thus, any statement about the relationship in Wikipedia should be referenced and stated carefully.--Bkwillwm 18:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I love how Nati and 172 delete the NPOV and cleanup tags without bothering to discuss...more proof that its needed. You both are highly defense of this article and you both behave like thugs deleting all your opposition away. This article needs serious cleaning up with or without any section on communist market reforms! (Gibby 16:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Hi Gibby, please remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. There is no need to compare 172 and Natalina with thugs. I suggest you take some time to calm down before replying again. - FrancisTyers 16:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a discription of their behavior. They delete almost anything I post without discussion, I work to edit my posts to make them better, NPOV, etc, they continue to delete them while having me blocked for appropriate editing. They are thugs, they abuse the rules, refuse to discuss complaints, refuse to make helpful suggestions. There only strategy is to weardown opponents until they give up. (Gibby 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

If you feel you are being targetted I suggest you take it through the proper channels and refrain from making personal attacks, as personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy. I have not seen either 172 or Natalina abuse the rules on this page. 172 has made several helpful suggestions. If you are getting frustrated, take some time to relax and then come back. Please don't try and escalate the problem. :) - FrancisTyers 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I believe that the communism article does not satisfy NPOV, and has not done so for a long time. I would like to add an NPOV tag, because I think it is approporiate to warn readers that the contents of the page are disputed. If an editor believes that such a tag should not be added, please make the arguments here, directly below this comment. If I don't see any arguments within 48 hours, then I will add the NPOV tag. --BostonMA 14:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. NPOV tags on controversial articles such as this one (see the template above) have the tendency to turn talk pages into brawls, exactly the wrong kind of environment for discussing the kinds of subtle, nuanced concerns that you have been raising. 172 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you give two or three examples of where you felt that brawling became more intense after an NPOV template was added? Could you explain why you think the intensification of the brawling was due to the NPOV tag, rather than both being caused by third factor? Thanks --BostonMA 20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I haven't been following the detailed discussions here fully, but I'm a bit surprised by the NPOV marker too. I'm inclined to second 172's remarks. I was also of the impression that the problems people - other than the free market communist - had with the page were fairly subtle questions of how accurate it was, which isn't exactly the same thing as an NPOV dispute. But I could easily be missing something. Palmiro | Talk 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to stipulate that if (and only when) there are good faith disputes about NPOV that NPOV tags would be appropriate? That is, can we take the argument that it invites brawling off the table? --BostonMA 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. As far as I'm concerned, yes. Palmiro | Talk 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag is needed for far more reasons than the free market communist sections constant deletion. BostonMA has made many attempts to explain this. The tag is necessary and I also believe a cleanup tag is also necessary to make this article flow better and more logically. (Gibby 08:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

Unless there's a specific, ongoing dispute among editors of this article about POV, the tag probably shouldn't be added. At least, that's how we've handled things in my experience, on George W. Bush, for instance. I'll have to disagree with 172, though; typically, the tag is a symptom, not a cause, of a talk-page brawl. {{npov-section}} is a useful template for tagging particular sections as POV. That should also only be used when there is an ongoing dispute, but since it narrowly affects only part of the article, but sometimes it's a good way to get things going. android 79 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that NPOV tag should only be present during a dispute. I have several concerns however. My first concern is not to encourage edit warring by requiring such acrimony as evidence that a neutrality dispute is "active". My second concern is that what appears to one party to be an NPOV dispute, may appear to another party as a dispute about stylistic or other concerns. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. --BostonMA 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

there is a dispute and there has been for some time. The [epithet deleted --BostonMA 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)], 172, and Nati constantly delete any tags while laregly failing to not only make good points as to why it should not be tagged but refuse to work with the complaints to make adjustments. They are incredibly defense against any change against this article and any addition attention it may get because of tags (Gibby 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

What? We're willing to work with complaints and to make adjustments. We don't act unilaterally. However, Gibby has, and we wish things to be discussed first before any changes are made. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Nati, I dont like your edit of the criticism section. Economic freedom is specifically defined for free market economies only not gift economies. Saying otherwise leads me to believe that sentence is original research with a bit of POV throughout. Please edit it. Furthermore it is not necessary to mention that communists think private property is theft, that should have been mentioned earlier in the page. A definition of economic freedom needs to be brief (and correct) once we have mentioned that Hayek believed that economic freedom leads to and protects civil and political freedom. (Gibby 08:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but then it needs to be clarified that Hayek is disputing the communists' definition on what freedom is, not that commnists oppose freedom in favour of something else (ie. as in the case of fascism). This is really a negative liberty versus positive liberty. Hayek believes a market economy and private property is an economic freedom that protects civil and political freedom, not that he believes that economic freedom goes hand in hand with political and civil freedom (which is not a unique view). Hayek's dispute with communism is the definition of economic freedom, and whether free markets and private property is integral to it; not whether economic freedom protects civil and political freedom. (Which by the way, civil and political freedoms have been violated even in the most economically free countries, ie. my country Singapore.) Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That second edit is actually much much better! (Gibby 08:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

THere is a difference between what communists percieve as a freedom from economic exploitation and what is defined as economic freedom. Economic freedom is economic exploitation to communists and communism is economic exploitation to "free marketeers" (cute lable huh ^_^ ) Hayek did believe economic freedom went hand in hand with civil and political freedoms. He believed the growth in economic freedom lead to a slow growth in civil and political freedoms. A loss of that economic freedom could also lead to a loss in civil and political freedoms. To Hayek that train moved both directions. (Gibby 08:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

But again, but communists do not think merely that their economic freedom is about freedom from exploitation - there is positive liberty in there too. Anarchist communists (and libertarian socialists) believe that economic rights affect political and civil rights, and all of these must stay egalitarian. What exactly composes economic rights is another matter. Economic freedom can thus be broken down into positive liberty and negative liberty. I believe Hayek is arguing for negative liberty being economic freedom. Leftists tend to argue the positive liberty side of the coin. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In order for communism to "work" or more appropriatly, for communists to attain their goals they must restrict and eliminate economic freedom of others. In doing so they will invariably restrict or eliminate the civil and political freedoms of these people to make sure their own communist policy prefrences do not get derailed. One good example is the abuse of the term "egalitarian" what has resulted is this false understanding that to be egalitarian everyone must have a similar outcome. But to produce similar outcomes you must raise some people up and lower others...this in and of itself is exploitation and an elimination of peoples freedom to suceed. This eliminates incentives to innovate...society stagnates, growth declines, poverty increases, and communist systems collapse after making everyone worse off.

The only way to make communism work is to make it entirely voluntary. But at most very few people will join such a system (less than 6% of Israel's population lives in voluntary communes). Communism could never, and can never be applied to entire states but will only suceed as small voluntary micro communities. But thats another story not for encyclopedeas.

Your goals are admirable Nati, but I'm afraid the outcomes of your prefrences lead to only more of the same problems you disire to fix. (Gibby 21:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Did any ruling communist party ever defend negative liberty? Electionworld 10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Why must certain people br raised up and others be lowered in order to have a similar outcome? One of the reasons why there isn't a similar outcome is a difference in upbringing, and differences in the quality of education, not just at school, but the way they are taught by their parents. Some parents have poor education, and therefore teach their children poorly, ie. their children must work instead of study (despite child labour laws).

6% of the population is quite a lot. Communism is not applied to states: it is applied to societies. It would be composed of people who realise the benefit of cooperation, and the commune would aggregate until it was independent enough to form a breakaway state. One of the major problems is nationalism and the idea that Russians must have a revolution in Russia in order to form a communist government, etc. But then again, there are world citizens who go again this principle. That is why there was the Spanish Revolution. That is why countless people flocked to defend Spain from the evil of Francisco Franco. Again, a gift economy is egalitarian without having to raise people up or down. Incentive remains, growth is strong, much more so than capitalism, because it does not rely on appropriate trade conditions (ie. not subject to things like consumer confidence, economic recessions, downward spirals, etc. etc.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty I'd love it if we could put our money where our mouth is. If we were allowed to each run our own city the way we see fit, or the way our most brilliant scholars of our beliefs see fit, you with your gift economy, me with my free market. That is the only way you'd be convinced that your system would be an utter failure.

With free markets I could turn a desert in to paradise in less than 40 years...if you give me a coastline I could do it in 30. (Gibby 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Start on another planet, and take 40,000 people with you. That would be the only fair experiment, if we were doing this empirically, ie. comparing growth rates (to destroy the existing catch-22). However, you make the mistake of thinking a gift economy does not have the same rights a free market has. It has roughly the same rights, just with a different culture, and different mechanisms, where people have the right to stop giving to other people because they aren't giving, and where money transactions do not occur. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

won't work...sorry, your system is logically and economically flawed. Under free market capitalism you are always able to donate money to the needy, whether or not they do anything productive. My system does not require reciprocating gifts in order to function, your system provides little incentives to participate, my system provides great incentives to participate. Your system has little ability to build new wealth, my system has the ability to constantly build wealth. Your system will not work, except in small conclaves where the people share the same altruistic idea...the rest of the world will be something far different...and if they are free market capitalist societies, they will be something far better. Your system is beyond conservative, it is regressive and backwards... (Gibby 20:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Do tell me why the Spanish Revolution was able fluorish until Nazi-aided Franco decided to plow his Fascist legions into the Republic and Stalin decided it was a good thing if the Soviet armies decided to round up the anarchists instead. And your system does not require reciprocating gifts in order to function, but it requires that people work and get wages (to survive, et al). It's the same requirement. The difference is how the work is valued, how its managed, and how the products of the labour are given, which matters, since products of such labour influence the ability to produce such products...and remember, this is all in the context of Aristotle's highest good in Nicomachean Ethics. (Ie. the process of accumulating wealth must not be self-defeating, capitalism has a higher risk of this than a gift economy, especially the power-mongering ways capitalists do it). Why is there not a great incentive to participate? After all, if a citizen freely gives his or her goods to the community, the community prospers without cost and is easily able to reciprocate. In a free market, the community might not be as able to, because for example, other individuals are not receiving economic transactions or are on the brink of subsistence, and cannot make any improvements or investments in say, expansion, because that would be too costly. Gift economics eliminates the growth cap and allows production and economic growth to proliferate. Free market in fact, has less ability to build wealth than gift economics does, because they require individuals pay prices in order for economic transactions to occur. Free markets are especially susceptible to macroeconomic mismanagement (so much for laissez-faire!) because of lack of synchronization, and can easily cause ripple waves throughout the entire economy. Market crashes, economic recessions, etc. these are all symptoms of the disease that is a free market. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Aristotle and Socrotese were both morons when it came to political philosophy. They didnt have a clue. In no way is gaining wealth in a capitalist system self defeating, unless you've made some fallacious assumptions at the very begining, which you must in order to reach the conclusion that some form of communism is necessary.

Under your system the only reason to participate is because you believe in it or get the intangble benefit of feeling your doing what is just and right. Nothing else.

You're view on wages is fallacious. Wages represent the value of someones time including the experience of labor, and their productivity.

Your're views on prices is also fallacious. No wealth is eatin up when people voluntarily pay for goods. Prices represent the demand for goods and the factors responsible for producing those goods. High profits mean that these are goods and factors that are highly demanded, thus more of these goods and factors are produced and more competition enters until society "gets its fill" and supply meets demand while that and competition help lower the price down near the marginal cost of production. At which point ineffecient buisneses will go belly up leaving only the effecient ones in place (but this may be getting complex for you). Nothing that has happend is bad, society got what they wanted, prices dropped, and ineffecient buisnesses left the market while the remaining buisnesses got better.

You also have a fallacious and sophomoric view of the Free Market. I suggest you never read Globalization and its Discontents because he will only make you more incorrect. The Free Market does not imply a market completly free from government intervention. Man Free market advocates discuss certain externalities and how they need attention. THe problem is when government intervenes too much or intervenes where the externality can be fixed by the market.

I suggest you read this free online book which may provide you with some very simple tools for understanding the free market frame work. http://www.ou.edu/class/econ3003/area1b.htm

From there I suggest the works of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Von Hayek. For a more modern take on explinations of the worlds events see Brink Lindsey's "Against the Dead Hand"

(Gibby 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Aristotle and Socrates were morons? Well, okay. But I notice you didn't say that of Plato. Perhaps that does reflect your authoritarian view on things. What is the purpose of wealth? Do humans obtain wealth for themselves? Or do they obtain it to accomplish some higher good? Do people buy houses in and of themselves, or to live in them? To call Aristotle or Socrates a moron would probably put you up against a whole plethora of good argument.

When particular methods for gaining wealth end up going against the very reasons you would need that wealth for....ie. killing your parents to gain wealth, destroying the world to gain wealth, then yes, it becomes self-defeating. And the reason why so many people have mid-life crises in the first place is that they accumulate wealth but in the process they are so engrossed they forget what the wealth is being accumulated for. To power-monger? To sacrifice goodwill and cooperation with others for something as superficial and materialistic as wealth? Again, wealth is a means, not an end. The capitalist culture often encourages sacrificing the very reasons to gain wealth for to gain wealth for itself.

The intangible benefit is not only the benefit of a gift economy. Of course, you're probably a materialist who doesn't seem to get the value of the intangible anyway. No problem. But there are plenty of selfish reasons to participate in a gift economy. Again, altruistic reciprocity supplies a reason for a gift economy.

You have a naive view of wages, actually, if you want to talk about sophomoric. Wages are at most, representing how much an employer is willing to pay an employee for his or her production. It does not represent the value of the worker's production. It might often be related in good-faith situations, but many times it is not. This becomes ever more apparent in the cycle of poverty.

Again, communism does not say that wealth is limited, although environmentalist movements assert that the precursors to wealth - natural resources - might. That does not matter (although this adds a further argument against a free market). Please do not insult me by saying "this is too complex for me", I know all about the theory of competition. I reject the theory of competition because it is my view that mutual benefit is better than mutual strife, as per Peter Kropotkin. You've focused too much on rebutting Marx and not that of Proudhon, or Kropotkin, or likewise. The problem with prices are not due to that - but rather what individuals are often coerced to pay because they are left with no other alternative - maintaining cartels and monopolies allows corporations to commit economic extortion.

A fallacious view of the free market? Intervention in the individual's affairs by the authoritarian state can result in unchecked power and abuse. Yet, regulation is needed to prevent people from using their existing powers to restrict the rights of others. Gift economics keeps property rights while making extortion toothless. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were morons, anyone who thinks that they know what is best for society and as a best knower should rule said society is a moron. And no they would not put me in my place, not because I'm a genius but because the socratic method does not work against free market ideology...it is logically consistant.

Wages are not paid based on your need they are paid based on your skill, production, and the value you add to the company.
Communism doesnt say wealth is limited but it is an assumption made by communism and communists...that is the basis of their entire theory. IF they thought wealth was unlimited you wouldnt want to be a communist let alone have an arguement to make about rich people hoarding all the wealth.

free market capitalism does not advocate killing parents to gain wealth, my god. Such extremeties to make futile points. Free markets are about voluntary transactions, this implies no coersive force and no exploitation, learn that.

ANd yes you do have a fallacious view of markets you see to think in order to be free they must be anarchicical but that is not necessarily true. (Gibby 22:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Ironic isn't it? You're the one declaring a free market is the only way to go. Plato was the one who ranted about a philosopher-king, anyway. Sorry to be a Spelling authoritarian (ironic is it not) - but I can't stand this - for the last time, it is "consistent"! Wages of course are not necessarily paid on needs, but you assume that is the focus of communism. (Even so, fulfilling your workers' needs, or that of your neighbours encourages further production and economic growth).

You make the logical fallacy by assuming what our motives for being communist are. The idea is not that wealth is limited and has to be redistributed, but that moguls hoard all the wealth, and because wealth is needed to gain existing wealth, they therefore will hoard the wealth and prevent others from gaining wealth for a very long time, until he or she is toppled. As for free market capitalism and killing parents, you are avoiding the point. That was merely an extreme demonstration to show you what "self-defeating purpose" is. But the point is, people increasingly do a lot of things in order to gain wealth, high-tension, high-stress acts, whether it be office politics or mongering with the brokers, or corporate fraud, for that matter. Or simply, overwork in the wrong areas. Is that not self-defeating? I merely cited what "self-defeating" entails, because every method that yields money can sometimes go against they very concepts you needed that money for.

Truly free markets does not prevent monopolies from forming, or cartels. It does not enforce a minimum wage. It allows corporations to conspire together to form a plutocracy. If your supposed free market implemented government restrictions on these acts, then abuse would set in, and the state would have more power than it should have. The only alternative is gift economics, because it preserves property rights while again, making hoarding and extortion infeasible as that would be easily counterproductive for the committing individual in a gift economic culture. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research, "For example, contrary to communist theory as it developed,..."

The current text reads:

For example, contrary to communist theory as it developed, the Communist-ruled People's Republic of China runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control.

This is suspected as original research, because it makes a claim regarding the consistency or lack thereof of certain actions with regard to communist theory. Who determined whether the actions in question are consistent with communist theory? An editor or a verifiable source? If this is the conclusion of the editor, then it is original research. It is wikipedia policy to have no original research. Therefore a request is hereby made for verifiable sources. If no verifiable sources are provided within 48 hours, or a request made for time to procure such sources, I will delete the phrase:

"contrary to communist theory as it developed"

--BostonMA 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall making pretty much the same point three weeks ago when this whole business of "free trade communism" first cropped up. In fact, I did. Here [18] - and here[19] and even more explicitly here [20] - and recapitulated the point in this edit where I note that a particular edit "claims that Free Trade Zones in China contradict communism as a theory. I have pointed out continually that this asserts the POV that China does indeed practise communism. It does not report a POV, but asserts one." [21]. Also made the same point here [22] and here [23]. Mattley ^(Chattley) 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I added in "self described communists" as part of the editing process to appease your nit pickity excuses for deletion...afterall communist ruled China did not satisfy you either. It just appears you alternate definitions of communism to suite your agenda (Gibby 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

It was originally refering to COMMUNISM as it developed away from the theory. That is from Marx to practice under Mao and Stalin. Remember State ownership of property is contrary to communist theory (its supposed to be owned by everyone not a government). But seemingly more contradictory is avowed or self described communist states making market oriented reforms. The sentence developed out of a need to make the section regarding these reforms stay despite constant deletion of the entire section no matter the effort. If your beef is with "the as it developed" portion rather than the inclusion of market oriented reforms undertaken by communist regimes, then I see no objection for its removal. It is a factual statement if one bothers to follow the logical steps to get there, but it is unnecessary if the inclusion of a refrence to market reforms is included (as it was made in an attempt to get the section to stay against wild and meaningless nit pickity accusations and complaints made against the section as a whole). (Gibby 07:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Hi Gibby. The only thing I want to remove is the phrase "contrary to communist theory as it developed". It may be, as you believe, a factual statement, and it may be the case, as you believe, that if one bothers to follow the logical steps to get there one will recognize its veracity. However, the standard for Wikipedia is that articles should not contain "original research" and following logical steps to get there is something, perhaps the main thing, that constitutes original research. The standard for Wikipedia articles is not "truth" but "verifiability". That is why a phrase such as that needs to have a verifiable source -- and if the verifiable source is potentially biased or dubious, the phrase should be explicitly attributed, as in "according to Jane Smith, it is contrary to communist theory...". I have no problems with the section on market oriented reforms, and no desire to remove them. If you think I am not applying the guidelines fairly, let me know. --BostonMA 14:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

What you seem to be calling "meaningless nit pickity accusations and complaints" is an attempt to follow Wikipedia:No original research. If you don't like it, you have the prerogative to leave Wikipedia and join and online forum where you can more effectively express your point of view. 172 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove that line. I do not consider it Original research however, I consider it an attempt to appease the nit pickity (see above) who were looking for bogus reasons to delete the section as a whole. That line most accurately reflects the logical direction they pushed my editing to appease them (though they ultimatly decided to delete the whole thing because that percentage of that sentence was "original research"...aka just another excuse to delete it. I repeat, that sentence is not original research, it was the result of editing to make complaints satisfied about the section, but go ahead and delete it. (Gibby 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Since you have agreed to the removal of the phrase, and since no other editor has come forward with verifiable sources, I am removing the phrase. --BostonMA 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that it has already been removed [24]. Never mind.--BostonMA 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If communism is defined as: a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production, it is self evident that Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control are contradictory to communist theory. Electionworld 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

HERE IS HOW MY SECTION LOOKED IN ITS FINAL EDIT (note it is different than what was included by Electionwoods "compromise" which currently stands)

Market Reforms of the Modern Communist

Contrary to communist theory proposed by Marx and Engles and later adapted by Lenin, Stalin, Mao the People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, the People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy [25].

These Special Economic Zones have few restrictions upon businesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties, and a free price system. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. These Special Economic Zones are different than the State Capitalism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, because the SEZs allow for capitalists to build and expand their industries and private property, free from the control of the central government. SEZ's operate under market economy rather than the state capitalist top down command economy approach.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [26]

Several other self proclaimed communist countries have also made pro market reforms in the last few decades including Vietnam.

(You can see how it is worded to try and appease 172, Mattley, and Nati. Some sentences are clunky because they had bogus crappy complaints I tried to appease...even though I knew they didnt actually want to compromise or work with me whatsoever). (Gibby 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

First Paragraph Cleanup

I have written an alternative first paragraph. Please comment. --BostonMA 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The current text reads:

"Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society. A major force in world politics since the early 20th century, modern communism is generally associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned. According to Marxism, this process may be initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, then passes through a transitional state period marked by the preparatory stage of socialism known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Pure communism which is stateless has never been implemented, it remains theoretical: communism is, in Marxist theory, the end-state, or the result of state-socialism. The word is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life under conditions of Communist party rule. Other thinkers that were predecessors or contemporaries of Marx, such as several anarchists, called themselves communist, but had alternate methods to Marxism to reach a classless society."

"Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production."

The political movement is not based upon common ownership, the theoretical social system is. Propose this be changed to:

"Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless, social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and to a variety of political movements which claim such a social organization as their ultimate goal."

"As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society."

Redundant if change above is made.

A major force in world politics since the early 20th century, modern communism is generally associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned.

Run-on sentence. Also sets up the premise that what comes later is based upon the Communist Manifesto, making it difficult to write correctly about the dictatorship of the proletariat or Leninism. Propose change to the following:

A major force in world politics since the early 20th century is a branch of communism associated with the names of Marx and of Lenin. Class struggle plays a central role in the theory of Marxism. The establishment of communism is viewed as the culmination of the class struggle between the capitalist class (the owners of capital) and the working class. Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

According to Marxism, this process may be initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, then passes through a transitional state period marked by the preparatory stage of socialism known as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Redundant if previous changes accepted.

"Pure communism which is stateless has never been implemented, it remains theoretical: communism is, in Marxist theory, the end-state, or the result of state-socialism."

"pure" communism? A couple things wrong with this. First, this doesn't take into account the claims regarding primative communism, i.e. the claim that "pure" communism did at one time exist. Second, it implies that societies with Communist Party rule are an "impure" form of communism. "State-socialism" in Marxist theory? That I would treat as suspect as original research. Propose change this sentence to:

"The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, it remains theoretical."

"The word is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life under conditions of Communist party rule.

Propose changing this to:

"However, Communism (espeically when the word is capitalized) is often used to refer to the political and economic regimes administered by one of the varieties of Communist Party.

Other thinkers that were predecessors or contemporaries of Marx, such as several anarchists, called themselves communist, but had alternate methods to Marxism to reach a classless society."

Hopefully mentioning that there are a variety of movement which call themselves communist in the first sentence is sufficient. I'm also not aware of anarchists contemporary to Marx who referred to themselves as communist. Always ready to learn, however.

Peter Kropotkin and anarchist communism. Is that a good enough example of an anarchist who called himself communist? Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com lists the defs of contemporary as: 1. Belonging to the same period of time, 2. Of about the same age. Wikipedia gives as a def: "overlapping in time. The lives of Marx and Kropotkin certainly overlapped, however, they were not of the same age, nor do their lifespans correspond to the same period. I am perhaps being nitpicky, so if there is text you would like, please suggest it here. --BostonMA 20:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Putting it all together:

"Communism refers to a conjectured future classless, stateless, social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and to a variety of political movements which claim such a social organization as their ultimate goal. A major force in world politics since the early 20th century is a branch of communism associated with the names of Marx and of Lenin. Class struggle plays a central role in the theory of Marxism. The establishment of communism is viewed as the culmination of the class struggle between the capitalist class (the owners of capital) and the working class. Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, it remains theoretical. However, Communism (espeically when the word is capitalized) is often used to refer to the political and economic regimes administered by one of the varieties of Communist Party. --BostonMA 23:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Common ownership of the means of production should definitely be retained in my opinion. Mattley ^(Chattley)

It is retained. Reread the sentence. --BostonMA

It is much less slippery and more concrete than classless and stateless I feel. Why not the following: Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization based on common ownership of the means of production, and a variety of political movements claiming such a form of social organization as their end goal.?

I don't object to that sentence. However,

It is not immediately apparent to someone unfamiliar with the theories that statelessness and classnessness are implied as part of common ownership of the means of production so it is worth spelling those out.
Mention of a classless society and a stateless society exist in the original version

--BostonMA

Other points: the class struggle point does not add a great deal, especially given the widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of class struggle.

Class struggle is one of the features that distinguishes Marxism from many other tendencies calling themselves communist.

The mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat also introduces a term characteristically misunderstood by non-Marxists likely to lead to confusion. These may be technically correct, but can give a very incorrect impression (equalling violent revolution and the suppression of democracy, as far as a lot of people would take it).

The dictatorship of the proletariat was mentioned in the previous version, and I have made a point of trying not to depart too far from the previous version. What is the nature of the misunderstanding that you fear will result regarding violent revolution and the suppression of democracy? --BostonMA 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The text conflates Marx and Lenin, writing all the various non-Leninist Marxists out of the equation, along with all the anarchist communists.

The original text refers to "A major force in world politics since the early 20th century". That force happens to be associated with the name of Lenin. I don't mean to imply that other tendencies do not exist, nor do I want their POV to not be stated in this article. However, I think the first paragraph should provide a foretaste of the rest of the article, and a significant point in the article is that there was a split in the Marxist movement, with some calling themselves Communist and others calling themselves Socialist. Those calling themselves Communist by and large identified themselves with the name Lenin. We can work on avoiding conflating Marx and Lenin and in providing an account of other tendencies. But I wanted to express these issues. --BostonMA

Writing out the Communist Manifesto is a good move, but suggesting that only Marxists - and, thereafter, Leninists - have any relevance to the topic is not.

Again, I don't want to write out other tendencies. --BostonMA

Putting the emphasis on the method by which communism is to be reached inevitably draws attention to the differences between communists. Concentrating on the ultimate goal of a communist society - the (avowed) common goal of communists - might be better in an introduction.

I think the article is about both what is in common to a number of movements, and what distinguishes them. Could you be more specific in what you think is imbalanced? --BostonMA

Granted, for Communist Parties the term most often denotes acceptance of Leninism, but some kind of definition embracing Leninists, non-Leninists and anarchists would be okay for the intro, with differences being fleshed out in the body.

Doesn't the first sentence bring together all tendencies that call themselves communist? --BostonMA 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The capitalization note is useful in the last sentence. Mattley ^(Chattley) 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (Gibby 07:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Revised

Objection has been raised to the preceding proposal for the first paragraph that it over-emphasizes Marxism and Leninism, and under-emphasizes alternate POV's. Here is a revision that I hope addresses these concerns:

"Communism refers to a classless, stateless, social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal. Early forms of human social organization have been described as "primitive communism". However, communism as a political goal generally denotes a conjectured future form of social organization which has never been implemented. There is a considerable variety of views among self-identified communists. However, schools of communism associated with the names of Marx and of Lenin have the distinction of having been a major force in world politics since the early 20th century. Class struggle plays a central role in the theory of Marxism. The establishment of communism is viewed as the culmination of the class struggle between the capitalist class (the owners of capital) and the working class. Marx held that society could not be transformed from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production all at once, but required a transitional period which Marx described as the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. The communist society Marx envisioned emerging from capitalism has never been implemented, it remains theoretical. However, Communism (espeically when the word is capitalized) is often used to refer to the political and economic regimes administered by one of the varieties of Communist Party.

--BostonMA 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Superior to the current paragraph as it now is. However, I've always wanted to clarify these two topics in the article: the schism between anarchism and Marxism (which doesn't seem to be brought on early enough), and wikifying a term (or some sort of link) to the different economic systems used to implement communism, which seems to be very vague in the article but often quite defined by the leftist thinkers. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, the empahsis on Marxism and Leninism is intentional. Alternate POVs are only a minor detail and a footnote to this article because only Leninists have seized state power. Though I respect the two of you, playing devil's advocate, I feel compelled to warn you about how the community will react to the insertion of a new introduction by a Marxist and an anarchist-communist. The change will likely result in a flood of right-leaning users storming this article, accusing the editors here of attempting to whitewash the history of Communist party rule from the main article on Communist ideology. Please maintain the focus on Marxism-Leninism in the intro.172 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to deviate from the emphasis too much, just allows some room. I understand your concern, however as long as it remains neutral (I'm personally very conscious about undue weight in the NPOV policy) I think it will turn out for the better. After all, if we were writing this pre-1917, the only "communists" (loosely defined then) to have seized power were the Paris Commune, but even before then they were a significant bunch (being imprisoned for being communist et al.) The main reason why I agree however is that it sounds more euphonic than the current introduction - a stylistic issue. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding in detail. Have been busy. 172's point, though coming from a different angle, puts a finger on a concern I had about the intro. It is indeed appropriate to concentrate on Leninism since only Leninists have seized state power, but we should perhaps try to find a way of saying this. Previous and revised versions are not all that explicit leaving the possible inference that Leninism is most notable and successful due to its inherent superiority to other variants of communism (stretching things perhaps, but that doesn't mean we couldn't be more precise). I was also concerned by the 'names of Marx and Lenin' bit. Again, perhaps it is a bit much to say that this conflates Marxism with Leninism, but it could suggest a position on the status of Leninism within Marxism: maybe 'Leninist interpretation of Marxism' could substitute.

My other broad concern (which is not necessarily a defence of the existing version as I think it may have been taken to be) is about populating the intro with lots of terms which have a precise meaning not necessarily widely understood by those not already familiar with the subject. These include, in particular, 'class struggle' and 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. My experience is that the former is often assumed to equate to some kind of violent action, whilst the latter is more than a little emotive given contemporary use of the term dictatorship. I think it is worth considering whether such terms actually inform the reader - whether we can give them sufficient context in an introductory paragraph to give them meaning - or whether their potential to mislead might outweigh their potential to inform. Mattley ^(Chattley) 14:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A number of points:

I think the article needs to be cleaned up. A great deal of talk has been devoted to changing a considerably smaller text. I think the discussion is useful, and can help make a better article. However, I think we need to avoid a logjam, and figure out a way to make improvements, even if those improvements do not constitute the absolute best possible text. Unless, and until the article is cleaned up, citing stylistic concerns as a grounds for deleting the edits of others is bound to raise eyebrows if not overt accusations of bias.
172 raises a concern about a flood of right-leaning users storming the article. I'm not sure that acknowledging the variety of movements that call themselves communist will necessarily attract such a storm. Further, I don't see how it is whitewashing anything. I have no objection to right-leaning users adding factual, well-sourced material in an NPOV way to the article. Can we not deal with original research, pov pushing etc. on a case by case basis? I'm not asking this rhetorically. I'm asking whether such a storm can be handled (if it comes) by incorporating appropriate points raised by the right-leaning users?
I agree with Natalinasmpf's point that the latest revision of the first does not give undue weight to anarcho-communism. It doesn't even mention it. But as she says, it just allows some room.
Mattley raises, as he has done before the question of using the term "dictatorship of the proletariat". That the phrase appears in the current version is due to Ultramarine [27]. 172 raised the issue of giving the appearance of "whitewashing". I would think that removing the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat", which after all was a phrase used and defended by Marx and Lenin, would be precisely the sort of edit that could be perceived as "whitewashing". Mattley raises the concern that the term would be misunderstood. I realize this is an article on a topic upon which almost everyone feels entitled to have a POV. It is not an article on Homology (mathematics). ~~Nevertheless, I'm not sure it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article to withhold facts on the grounds that these facts may be misunderstood.~~(striken by BostonMA 18:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

--BostonMA 16:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no-one has suggested witholding facts. I certainly haven't. My comments above relate to the questions of how and in what context facts are presented and whether or not they require additional explanation. Unless I am mistaken, this was supposed to be a discussion about revision of the article's first paragraph: my comments relate to what is useful and appropriate in that paragraph, rather than the article as a whole. I think the question of how specific statements are likely to be read by those unfamiliar with Marxist terminology is an entirely proper one to consider, given that we are attempting to write an introductory article for a general audience. Mattley ^(Chattley) 17:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What Mattely wrote above is a much more clear version of what I'd meant to say earlier. I'm not raising a particular dispute with the changes proposed above, but just giving some advice for future reference. This article must be light on Marxist terminology because terms like "means of production" and "mode of production" are often going to go over the heads of our readership. Worse, the usage of terms associated with Marx are likely to contribute to a misimpression that the article is being written from a communist perspective among some general readers. To give BostonMA, who is a new user, an idea of some of the disputes that arise on Wikipedia, I feel compelled to explain how unnecessary and heated neutrality disputes are triggered on Wikipedia as a result of the misunderstanding of technical terminology by non-expert readers. For instance, I recently concluded a lengthy dispute with an editor who kept on misinterpreting a paragraph written by Samuel P. Huntington because of certain aspects of Huntington's language. The paragraph happened to use a few standard social science terms that many non-specialists associate with Marxists, though they are used by Marxist and non-Marxist scholars alike. Because of the usage of those terms, that particular editor-- who is nonetheless overall a legitimate and intelligent users-- was convinced for weeks that Samuel P. Huntington shared the same political orientation as Noam Chomsky and William Blum. I'm concerned about similar disptues occurring here unless both the substance and the style of this article stay written in a manner that is friendly to a readership deeply suspicious of any langugage associated with Marx. 172 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. --BostonMA 18:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

1. Is there a problem with right-leaning users editing the article? If so, the article is extremely POV. Electionworld 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No. I meant that I do not want to see right-leaning users-- or users from any POV--objecting to the neutrality of the article because the article should be written in a way that does not trigger neutrality disputes. I was concerned that the removal of the references to "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Communist party rule from the intro would contribute to the impression of bias among a mainly U.S. readership. 172 11:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing there is a typo involved, but I'm having difficulty reconciling:

I was concerned that the removal of the references to "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Communist party rule from the intro would contribute to the impression of bias among a mainly U.S. readership.

with this:

This article must be light on Marxist terminology because terms like "means of production" and "mode of production" are often going to go over the heads of our readership. Worse, the usage of terms associated with Marx are likely to contribute to a misimpression that the article is being written from a communist perspective among some general readers.

172, do you want the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phrase kept or removed? --BostonMA 13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more clear in stressing the particular importance of the term "dictatorship of the proletariat." Certain concepts from Marx's original work are relevant in an entry meant for general readers than others. Examples of important concepts in Marxism that are not going to be too familiar to a broad readership on communism include "accumulation," "alienation," "base," "superstructure," "dialectical materialism," "use value," "exchange value," "false consciousness," to name a few. Generally speaking, this article should not overwhelm readers with more Marxist terminology than they can easily digest. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat," however, is an exception that should be singled out for special attention in this article. A reference to the term warrants mentioning somewhere in the introduction, if not in the first paragraph, less by virtue of the exigencies of Marxist theory and more by virtue of the historical record. Fred Bauder is correct below in stating that the seizure of state power by Lenin and his associates and the aftermath of that event was one of the major historical event of the 20th century, if not the major historical event; and that event is strongly associated with Marx's concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Communism's chief influence on the course of history was that event; and the Marxist term most associated with that event, especially in non-Marxist and anti-Marxist discourse, is the "dictatorship of the proletariat." I know that you are trying to be faithful to the matters of the intellectual history of the subject. But I'm worried that a user who doesn't realize that the editors here are working in good faith may stop by and make loud accusations of "whitewashing communism" because the reference to "dictatorship of the proletariat" (which some of the less sophisticated anticommunists on Wikipedia like to use merely because of its bad connotation to most contemporary Western readers) is no longer featured as prominently. 172 16:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that 172 is referring to me as one of the right wing mob but I am not happy with the way the introduction treats the seizure of power by Lenin and his associates. That event and its aftermath was perhaps the major historical event of the 20th century. I'm not exactly sure how this should be expressed however. Fred Bauder 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI I have been the one stressing all along that the seizure of state power by Communist parties remain at center focus of the article. 172 16:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is consensus that the proposed revision is better than the current first paragraph, and that it does not introduce any egregious problems, so I am making the change. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BostonMA (talk • contribs) .

Well I mean, there is way too much emphasis on Marxism. Nearly everyone else discusses it; the fact that people gloss over the Paris Commune et al. as "communism" is not because neutrality dictates it (and I mean, they did indeed pose a severe revolutionary threat to the establishment), it's just one of the other sides of the coin that get ignored, ie. Herculaneum gets glossed over at the expense of Pompeii, the Thespians at the Battle of Thermopylae, etc. That is to say, Pompeii is more valuable archaelogically than Herculaneum, as were the Spartans militarily superior to the Thespians, but they deserve more than a glossing over. Go ahead and make the changes. I have removed Gibby's additions of the tag because we're not disputing (or at least not I) your changes, I certainly feel they are much better than it is now, and that we're doing well with our current means of discussion (I feel that Gibby only seeks ways to antagonise us), just that we need to work it out further. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for including/compromising on/not including Gibby's section

I would like those on all three sides of the dispute to list their reasons (with examples and details) for their point of view to list them here. This is so that anyone reading this discussion can get a view of each side's arguments. Please do not add comments under points of view different from your own, as this as intended as clarification, not a argument starter. --Pianohacker (Talk) 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for including the section

Reasons for including a shortened version of the section

(I think this is what we have now, but the dispute is still ongoing, so... --Pianohacker (Talk))

Agree, somewhere as it is now, but with an addition of contradiction with communist theory (which is self-evident. Electionworld 10:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for not including the section

[Comments stuck out by me. 172 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)]

Pianohacker, the reasons have been stated over and over again and the disucssion is stale. Please, just review this talk page and the previous two talk archives. 172 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize this, but I want to create a central place for reasons for anyone involved, not just me. --Pianohacker (Talk) 02:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Restif de la Bretonne

Looking at the page, there is an important ommission of Restif de la Bretonne and the origin of self-described communists in the French revolution (see http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/communis.html). I think the approach on this page is good and that certain key points should be highlighted - The publication of the Communist Manifesto and the Paris Commune. The latter I think is of exceptional importance - giving substance to Commune-ism - and of greater importance than the subsequent Bolshevik coup in Russia. Further, it is important to show how the tensions in social democracy led to the collapse of socialist internationalism at the onset of the First World War - and how opposition to the war united the various communist groups - Bolsheviks, Bordiguists, Council Communists drawing in masses of workers - even if the aspirations of the Russian Revolution were never realised. The participants thought the end of capitalism was 'nigh', a position they had to modify following successive defeats in Germany, Seattle and the collapse of the world rervolution they had envisioned. Soviet Marxism then emerges as a way of coping with managing a "socialist" economy following this collapse. The communist parties which subsequently emerged have quite a different nature from earlier communist formations, whatever value people might care to give either. What do people think?82.133.121.107 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

They have quite a shared nature, only that a schism caused all communists from that point to diverge. But yes, we gloss too much over the previous details of communism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

theft and exploitation

Just a clarification Gibby: communists in general do not see property rights in themselves as theft and exploitation: rather that people can accumulate wealth and power to eventually hoard and suppress other people's rights with it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

you cannot call it a "Right to hoard wealth" that gives a slant in favor of communists and the view that property and wealth are defecto "hoarded" and "theft", my edit removes such pov and returns the section to neutrality. And by the way, the only way to use money and power to suppress people's rights is to have a strong central government that allows it. By reducing the size and scope of a governmental authority and expanding economic rights you reduce the government's ability to play favorites and pick winners and losers in society. The ability to pick winners and losers in society is not a condition of capitalism or property but a condition of large intrusive governments. This ability was wildly present in all communist governments. (Gibby 17:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

Communists call it as such. I am not saying Wikipedia should say it is: that's just their view. This is semantics, I thought you knew what I was getting at. Capitalists and corporations eventually form their own de-facto governments. The state is the natural evolution of capitalism. What do you mean you need a strong central government that "allows it"? For example, the wealthy can easily buy up all the radio stations and all the media and by owning it, choose not to air programs of their opposition. They can then also use corporate blackmail against the small businesses or independent newspapers that choose to do so. It's plutocracy. The only "communist governments" that has ever been established were those present during the Spanish Revolution and the Paris Commune. Communist states are completely different, and they only advocate communism, they are not communist in the sense of being stateless - the article itself admits this. (Note the distinction between government and state). Again, its their view that property rights give people the ability to hoard and use it against others, I was not suggesting Wikipedia would state it as a fact, just as a view of communists. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not say Communists call it...you said Communists do not beleive in a right to hoard wealth, wich is pov original research and inappropriate. There is no right to hoard wealth, it does not exist. There are rights to property. Which communists believed to be the hoarding of wealth. You did not state it you simply implied by your statement that property rights were not such but rights to hoard wealth.

At anyrate...even if rich people bought up all the radio stations and played only what they liked there is NO WAY such a system would sustain itself. This requires all the rich people to agree with one another to air only certain material. But if consumers want to hear something else there will be a strong profit motive to provide consumers with that material, and thus a strong incentive to cheat such an aggreement. Even if the rich people did not fall for this profit incentive someone else will, a start up company will provide that service, and guess what. THEY DONT HAVE TO SELL. The only thing that will prevent them from competing and forcing them to sell would be a large intrusive and abusive government that has its hands in the economy where it should not be.

Profit thus drives people, under free capitalism, to do what is best for consumers. THe more free our economies the better the general will is served. The more restrictive the economy less general will is served and possible harm is created. Like tariffs, and corporate subsidies (Gibby 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

PS, intrusive governments pick winners and losers in society at the harm to the rest of society. Under free market capitalism, winners are chosen by voluntary consumption of goods, thus people "vote with dollars" and society picks its own winners; meaning such a system is inherently free of exploitation and harm to the general will...aka welfare of the people. (Gibby 17:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

That was a metter of phrasing. Stating a view of the communists neutrally is not a point of view in itself, it's merely reporting on a point of view. Of course, this should be balanced. You may disagree that private property is not "a right to hoard wealth", but that's your POV.

You assume that rich people will not do this - how incredibly naive; they are power-hungry, selfish and capitalistic. It is of course in their nature to suppress the opposition! They do not merely have to agree with one another to air certain people - (companies do form cartels, it is very common), they have a common aim to repress the poor so they can never rise up, get an education and prevent their exploitation. Profit incentive? There is no profit in airing the voice of the opposition - there's profit in catering to pop music, or pop culture, but not necessary political views, who by the way, are often in the minority of the poor who happens to be aware. By simply continuing this repression, the poor can remain in their power base. This happens today. Why do you think the masses are so apathetic? It's induced by the moguls and the corporations.

It is very naive to think that free capitalism tries to do what is best for the consumers. Rather, it tries to exploit the most out of the consumers. It tries to gain as much, to take as away as much as possible for the consumer as beneficial it is for the seller with minimal loss to the producer (thus a profit). Yes, your idealistic little laissez-faire world. The more "free" an economy is, it merely means more freedom for those with existing power, and no freedom for those with no power, and their descendants (and their children) - poverty cycle. In a free market, no one cares about the general good - that is why there's the tragedy of the commons.

Note, my tone is normally not this strong, but it is eye for an eye in this case, since you yourself argue so vehemently. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Iti s a criticism of commuinism section not a defense of communism section, I dont see why it must end on defending a fallacious communist assumption.

I dont assume rich people will do this, I know they will. It is not only mathematically proven but it is proven through history. Profit motives, greed, who cares what you call it, do what is best for society under a free market capitalist society.

And yes there is profit in airing the voice of your opponent. BIG PROFITS, especially if your the only one doing it. Who do you think puts out all them anti capitalist documentaries? the Che T-Shirts? etc? CORPORATIONS, CAPITALIST COMPANIES!!!! They do it because communist and socialists by the crap up. They are just providing what society wants.

THis is what capitalism does best, and what socialism and communism cannot do at all.

BTW what catch-22 is there with "Wealth hoarding"? (Gibby 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Again, that's probably what a command economy cannot do. Not what communism and socialism cannot do. Please stop associating command economies as the only implementation of communism or socialism. Human nature is not mathematically proven. It is logical that if you are going by the means of individual benefit of yourself (ignoring philosophy), and have chosen the path of private property, it is far more beneficial to silence your opponent then to gain some short-term money allowing him to speak.

And again the opponent must pay money in order to air his or her voice. Only the wealthy can afford to shell out tens of thousands, if not millions. of dollars just to run a campaign ad on television. Or to speak out against injustice.

And you once again, ignore the tragedy of the commons. The catch-22 involved with wealth hoarding is involved with the cycle of poverty. Control and hoard all property, such that the landowner's tenants must continue to pay rent, etc. etc., hoard food supplies, and the existing money such that the repressed is never able to obtain his or her education (in order to rise in income) because he or she must always use the income he or she earns to subsist, rather than improving his or her ability to make money, through education especially. That is the nature of capitalism, to having existing capita. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No sorry, they cannot do it. Only free market capitalism has the necessary tools and provides the right incentives to build wealth for all of society so that no one is harmed or unjustly treated. Wealth is not limited, it is built upon volunteerism, and people do not remain impoverished because such a system creates the greatest amount of opportunity for wealth building by removing the damanging anchors restrictions upon economies place on creating wealth.

-About the wealthy, you have a very sophmoric understanding of how economies work...please read some heavy free market material it will blow your mind away. Not one socialist propoganda piece you have read to date will prepare you for what you will learn. Free market economists are some of the most bullet proof writers and arguers the world has to offer. I dont care if you call profit greed, greed under the free market system is more beneficial to society than Mother Tearesa running a communist country. Profits are the incentive to do what consumers want. When their is free markets, there is competition, thus survival of companies requires them to do whatever the consumers want. WHATEVER THEY WANT. Corporations serve the people and thus serve the general will.

So, no the rich WILL air the voice of his opponent because its profitable to do so. Yes the opposition must pay money in some form...mostly likely by advertisments of corporations who want communists socialists or whoever the opposition is to buy their goods. Again nothing wrong with that.

Your alternative must be public access news, television, radio...which is a TERRIBLE idea. Public broadcasting is NOTORIOUS for censorship, and in no way has to reflect the needs of the people as it has no incentive to do so. (Gibby 17:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

You missed out the important bit, Corporations serve the people with money and thus serve the general will of the people with money'. If you fancy discussing this more, please do it off this talk page. It is cluttered as it is. - FrancisTyers 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, KDRGibby, you ignore implementations like gift economies. Free markets hardly create oppurtunity for those born poor. Wealth is perhaps not limited, (although you would think so otherwise considering the limited amount of natural resources and public goods, ie. the problem of the tragedy of the commons, again, which you ignore.) But that is not the problem. The cycle of poverty remains. With a free market, how are those lower with less money supposed to obtain education? They lose out, because their parents do not have money to buy state of the art educational materials, take them through every possible educational oppurtunity, while the wealthy can easily enjoy this ability. The problem is not the government that is restricting: the wealthy form their own plutocracy, their own government. Again, the ancient Greeks foresaw this, (which is why they often chose public office by lottery at times to prevent the ensuing abuse of the wealthy during campaigns). Profits are the incentive to milk as much out of the consumer. Of course, doing what the consumer wants is a viable way, but then there is course, suppressing consumers, so they have to rely on you. Furthermore, free markets suffer from majoritarianism, even if the consumers did what they want, and majoritarianism represses individual liberty. If not majoritarianism, then a tyranny of the rich minority.

Why would it be profitable to air the voice of the minority? The alternative is just like before, private broadcasting (not a centralised kind) in the context of a gift economy. Because the requirement for things to be done in a gift economy is done on the basis of character, rather than material wealth, repression does not occur. In a gift economy, there is incentive to please the community and its needs as much as possible, in exchange for free flow of economic output (gifts) to the producer, in this case, the broadcaster. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What does communism refer to?

Dear Electionworld: the version of the first sentence which I inserted read:

Communism refers to a classless, stateless, social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

Your edit changed this to read:

Communism refers to a theory of classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production, and to a variety of political movements which claim the establishment of such a social organization as their ultimate goal.

The second half of the sentence refers to "such a social organization" as a goal. The claimed goal of communists is of course a form of social organization and not a theory. Thus, I think the grammar of your edit is problematic. I appreciate the point I think your are making that communism refers to a conjectured future social organization, rather than a currently existing one. If it is OK with you, I will modify your edit by replacing "a theory of ..." with "a conjectured future ..." That makes later statements a bit redundant, but those can be cleaned up in time. Please let me know if I have understood your concern correctly, or whether you have objections to this modification. --BostonMA 02:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Conjectured future" is a no-no to put in the sentence, namely because not what it means, but it sounds horrible. Communism is an ideology/theory. A communist society is the application/praxis of communism. Let's just state it plainly: "it is an ideology which proposes that present society should become a classless, stateless, social organization. This social organization would have common ownership"....and so on. (It's better if it's broken up this way too - otherwise it becomes run-on). Then to proceed, "A variety of political movements claim its ideals to be the establishment of such a social organization". The use of the conditional tense, as well as "propose", implies its hypothetical nature without making it...awkward. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My disagreement with the prior edit was primarily that it was grammatically confused. Your proposal does flow better than my simple edit. You may wish to avoid implying that there is a single ideology called communism. You also may wish to consider referring to claimed goals rather than claimed ideals. Given your wish to make a larger change than my simple edit, you may also wish to take into consideration that there are political movements which claim that their ultimate goal is a classless, stateless society based upon common ownership of the means of production, which are not communist, at least according to their own systems of labeling. Many socialists and anarchists fall into that group. I think it would be appropriate for us to avoid foisting the label communist on such movements against their own wishes. --BostonMA 03:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are many anarchists (or were), who called themselves communist. Perhaps, the most encompassing definition of communism would be an advocation of the lifestyle of living in a commune-based society, often radical, evolving out as a branch of socialism. Hmm, let me think.

"Communism refers to the concept that society should be based on collective entities based on socialist principles. Historically, these were communes, which became the source of its name. Communism eventually became generally highly radical in nature, proposing that present society should transform into a social organization without social classes, any form of state government and private property. Such a social organization would be based upon the common ownership of the means of production. A variety of political movements assert their goals to be dedicated to the establishment of such a social organization, but communism is most often associated with the ideology outlined by communist thinker Karl Marx (Marxism), and its movements."

Then we proceed to emphasise Marxist theory here, before finally referring to the schism that divides most Marxists and anarchists, clarifying that many movements (and some today) call themselves communist (or implying it, not having to emphasise this too much) without being Marxist. The only thing I'm not sure about is about movements that would call themselves communist but do not say their ideal is abolishing all property, no state, etc. etc., I think we can just imply that.

This allows some wiggle room to accomodate for many other movements historically which claim to be communist, movements that are communist in nature but don't claim themselves to be communist (of course debatable but most of the time they are avoiding stigma), movements that claim to be communist but may or may not advocate abolishment of the state, as well as the dominant Marxist-Leninism which is developed heavily in the lead-in to recompensate. Then the history of the development is illustrated later. It also highlights one thing: communism IS a branch of socialism (just like anarchist communism is a branch of libertarian socialism, so we do have to continue the logic here) - which was not asserted much in the article earlier.

(On one note: this page is now the #1 search result if someone types "communism" into google.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research -- "Marx and Engels came to see socialism as an intermediate stage..."

Was: That paragraph about Marx and Engels is back

I notice that user:172 has put the following passage back:

"In the last half of the nineteenth century the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels came to see socialism as an intermediate stage of society in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. They reserved the term communism for a final stage of society in which class differences had disappeared, people lived in harmony, and government was no longer needed."

Can anyone give any sources for this? Specifically, where did either Marx or Engels write that there would be an "intermediate" stage called "socialism" and a "final" stage called "communism"? I'd like a source for the "class differences" that were mentioned too.

I'm as certain as I can be that there are no sources for the above. Unfortunately, it just keeps on coming back.

As far as I can see, The best way to deal with it is to make it clear in the Marxism section that it is a common misconception. Hydrostatic 16:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that's not a misconception. I'll try to find a source for this distinction. For one, I'm pretty sure this is discussed in the Communist Manifesto.--Bkwillwm 16:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm agree with Hydrostatic. I have never seen any sources for this. I disagree with Bkwillwm, I think it is quite likely a misconception. I believe using the term "socialism" for what Marx and Engels described as "the lower stage of communism" was either introduced by Lenin, or if it pre-dated Lenin, was popularized by him. I am changing the header of this section to "suspected original research". If no-one provides a source within 48 hours, or requests more time to obtain a source, or suggests a better text than what follows, I will change the text to read:

"~~In the last half~~By the end of the nineteenth century the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a ~~"lower stage"~~ "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The ~~"lower stage of communism"~~ "first phase" would eventually ~~be replaced with a "higher stage"~~ give way to a higher phase in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' "~~lower stage~~ first phase of communism" and used the term "communism" interchangably with Marx and Engels' "higher ~~stage~~ phase of communism."

--BostonMA 17:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi BostonMA. I think the changes you made add more confusion for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that the paragraph still implies that M&E differentiate between the two terms but does not make that assertion clear. Another is that the terms you added about "lower" and "higher" stages presumably come from Critique of the Gotha Programme and are a misinterpretation of what Marx wrote. In it he is typically hazy about the nature of a revolution and mentions "the first phase" and "a higher phase" thus implying any number of phases. His reason is that what happens during the communist revolution depends very much on the prevailing circumstances. He cites, among other things, the productive forces as a determining factor in all this.

This is more explicitly covered in the manifesto of the Socialist League whose founding members included William Morris and Eleanor Marx and had the support of Engels. It states:

"The end which true Socialism sets before us is the realisation of absolute equality of condition helped by the development of variety of capacity, according to the motto, from each one according to his capacity, to each one according to his needs; but it may be necessary, and probably will be, to go through a transitional period, during which currency will still be used as a medium of exchange, though of course it will not bear with it the impress of surplus value. Various suggestions have been made as to the payment of labour during this period."

I suggest simply replacing the passage with one that points out this misconception. As a start, anyway.Hydrostatic 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I wished you had actually provided an alternative, however. ;-) In the quote you provide, it seems as though "Socialism" is used as a synonym for what Marx and Engels previously refered to as "Communism". I agree that earlier in the century, M & E sharply distinguished themselves from "Socialism". Perhaps it would better to state that "by the end of the 19th century, the terms "socialism" and "communism" had become somewhat interchangable". What do you think?

Also, your point is well taken that the Critique of the Gotha program speaks of a first phase and a higher phase, leaving open the possibility for any number of phases. I have substituted throughout. Let me know what you think. --BostonMA 21:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I still think the paragraph should go and another one take its place. And, yes, I should have provided an alternative. Let me think about it for a while. In the meantime, I for one am happy for you to make your improvements to the article. But before you do, I have some more gripes (sorry to be a pain):

Class differences are not a feature of the first phase. From Critique of Gotha:

"This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege."

The existence of such phases and their nature is not set in stone but is actually dependent on the prevailing conditions. Again, from Gotha:

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"

(The quote I gave earlier from the Socialist League Manifesto is more to-the-point and the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which followed on from the Socialist League in 1904, does not see the need for a transition period at all)

It still reads as if there were to be two phases.

This is why I think it needs a complete rewrite; it's just too hard to try to improve what's there. Of course, a rewrite will take a bit of time (especially if you want me to do it) as it's important to get across these points while making it completely unambiguous. -Hydrostatic 00:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

After looking into it more, it seems liks Lenin was the one that came up with the specific distinction of socialism being earlier post-capitalism, and communism being the "higher stage." Although, I don't think the article should imply that socialism and communism were interchangeable in Marx. The two are refered to as different. For example, from For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing: "communism has seen other socialist teachings arise in opposition to it... because it is itself only a one-sided realization of the socialist principle." I'll see if I find anything else in Marx that better distinguishes the two. Otherwise, I like the above proposed section.--Bkwillwm 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your quote in its proper context reads:

"I am therefore not in favor of our hoisting a dogmatic banner. Quite the reverse. We must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their ideas. In particular, communism is a dogmatic abstraction and by communism I do not refer to some imagined, possible communism, but to communism as it actually exists in the teachings of Cabet, Dezamy, and Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a particular manifestation of the humanistic principle and is infected by its opposite, private property. The abolition of private property is therefore by no means identical with communism and communism has seen other socialist theories, such as those of Fourier and Proudhon, rising up in opposition to it, not fortuitously but necessarily, because it is only a particular, one-sided realization of the principle of socialism."

It might interest you to read this small section from the preface to the 1890 German edition of the Manifesto:

"Nevertheless, when it appeared, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. In 1847, two kinds of people were considered socialists. On the one hand were the adherents of the various utopian systems, notably the Owenites in England and the Fourierists in France, both of whom, at that date, had already dwindled to mere sects gradually dying out. On the other, the manifold types of social quacks who wanted to eliminate social abuses through their various universal panaceas and all kinds of patch-work, without hurting capital and profit in the least."

This is not the issue, though. Whether they made any distinction between socialism and communism does not change the fact that they didn't use the words the way the paragraph claims they did. Still, any information you can find showing that M&E differentiated between socialism and communism is appreciated. Hydrostatic 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Making changes as discussed. Further changes are welcome. --BostonMA 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Suspected Original Research -- "the philosophy of communists who assert that private property are forms of theft..."

The following phrase appears in the new section "Differing philosophies on the nature of property"

"the philosophy of communists who assert that private property are forms of theft..."

When the phrase occured in the context of "criticisms of communism", it was conceivable that the phrase was meant to be attributed to one or another of the critics mentioned. In the current context, the phrase gives the impression that communists in general hold that property is theft. Who determined whether communists (in general) hold that property is theft? A verifiable source or an editor?

Unless a verifiable source is provided within 48 hours, or a request made for time to obtain such a source, I will remove the phrase in question.

Although the issue is verifiablity rather than factuality, I will point out that the notion that property is theft is found in the writings of the Anarchist Proudhon, which were sharply criticized by Marx in "The poverty of philosophy". --BostonMA 17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It was to pair with Gibby's edits, as one of his additions asserted that communists were against property rights, as opposed to the nature of private property in itself. I'll find a way to remedy it, because I think Hayek is simply criticising one implementation of communism (as opposed to a gift economy), as much as he targets the general nature of it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Removing statement as discussed. --BostonMA 23:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) I guess not. It's already gone. --BostonMA 23:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Singapore in the 20th century

I doubt this is an example of unlimited wealth creation. They are simply ports that rely on exports and foreign investment. Being a citizen of Singapore myself, and seeing the massive authoritarianism in our government, I highly doubt Singapore is an example of the success of capitalism (in terms of political rights, although civil rights are mostly untouched). For one, we have a strong welfare program. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Singapore were fishing villages of little signifigance other than a nice port. The villagers were mostly poor.

In the United States and the United Kingdom the vast majority of people were poor with only a small aristocracy holding much of the wealth and a small merchant class gaining ground.

In all 4 areas, as economic freedom gained ground and capitalism took root, the poor as a percentage of the populations shrank, while wealth within those countries grew.

Futhermore, it is very easy to observe everywhere how wealth is unlimited. Were there cars in Singapore 100 years ago? Are there now? Did civilians have the internet 20 years ago? Do they now? Now Signapore has universities, parks, skyscrapers, cars, and people who would have been peasants 100 years ago now have their own airconditioned apartment and a vehicle for transportation. There are billions of examples of created wealth, many of them happening in the last 100 years. How you build that wealth is not the question. You don't have to ALWAYS create and export products to build wealth. Trade, as Singapore and Hong Kong have done, is an great example of how little rocks can become big cities.

Wealth is unlimited.

Now, Singapore and Hong Kong are great examples of capitalism, but they are not perfect. Hong Kong and Signapore tend to reach their arms into the housing market, and as you say run welfare programs (which may not be anti capitalist...but it may, if run improperly, seriously damage or drain the economy). Hong Kong is considered the most liberal economy on the planet...as you know from my sources on the communism page.

(Gibby 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

That's hardly the case. To debate this philosophically, one could say it is very limited indeed, given the laws of thermodynamics. What happened to the natural resources? And what do you mean, the "villagers were mostly poor"?! They are Malay villages. If anything, they traded capitalistically, they just didn't have the technology. This is history - the ancient port of Temasek had been razed by the Portugese years before. Do actually read on History of Singapore. Singapore did not have a port between the 16th and 19th centuries. If anything, you insult Malay culture by saying the kampung way of life is "poor". If anything, it was decent by Malay standards. It was just more primitive. Singapore didn't grow because "capitalism" took root (it was a free market is anything else then), it grew because the British chose it as a port. And then, the British treated Singaporeans as second class citizens. They were the sole reason why Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia was set up - because of their arrival, resulting in racism from then onwards.

Skyscrapers et al. happened because technology took root, not capitalism. Because Singapore had control over a port, and thus could gain a bit of money when involved in transactions between other ports, and could sell hospitality services, etc. which allowed them to invest this money in procuring natural resources. Wealth creation happens at the natural resources stage - farming and the like, etc. ie. ultimately energy from the Sun. That is hardly creation of wealth than procuring it. It's not unlimited. There is only so much wealth as there is energy in the universe. Then entropy comes in. Go learn some physics. Commerce does not generate money - it simply manages wealth, and then pays the middleman some share of the wealth as commission. Technology allows energy and matter to be organised more efficiently, but that's not creating wealth. Construction, et al. is also making things more efficient, which is indeed creation of wealth, but that is hardly the matter, because natural resources are still constrained. And that still doesn't fulfill the point: the issue at hand is not wealth creation of the entire system, but of each individual. And ultimately because each individual is repressed, the rate of growth is much less than it should be.

And then you proceed to insult our housing program. Our housing programs are not the problem (in fact, the programs by the Housing Development Board are one of the most successful public housing programs ever, in my opinion). Political freedom is. Where did this suppression of political freedom come from? In order to quell the communists. Go figure. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere do communists say that wealth is not unlimited, or that it cannot be created. On the contrary, Marxists have specifically stated many times that the labour of workers is the source of all wealth. Obviously, this implies that wealth can be created. What exactly are the examples of Hong Kong and Singapore supposed to prove? That some countries became richer in the 20th century than they were before? Well of course they did, because nearly all countries (including Communist ones) experienced economic growth in the 20th century. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not true that Marxists say the labour of workers is the source of all wealth. This is more accurately attributed to Lassalle in the draft programme of the United Workers' Party of Germany which Marx replied to in Critique of the Gotha Programme. He wrote:

"Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power." (his emphasis)

-Hydrostatic 16:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an article talk page

There appears to be an on-going discussion on this talk page regarding the virtues or failings of one another form of social organization. While such discussions are natural and sometimes very productive, they may also clutter this talk page. Let us suppose the optimal, and that one of the parties convinces the other. Perhaps editor #1 becomes a libertarian, or alternatively, editor #2 becomes an anarcho-communist. Would that in any way affect how the Communism article ought to be written? I tend not to think so. My request is that editors, while they are editting this talk page, stay focused on issues that will have an impact on the content of the article. Please take other discussions, regardless of how intrinsicly important they may be, to a more appropriate forum. Thank-you. --BostonMA 21:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, KDRGibby did initiate the entire discussion.. I know how childish that sounds, but I'm the one being put on the defensive. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You and KDRGibby might be interested in the discussions at Yahoo Groups' WSM_Forum. To get you started, Here's something picked at random about gift economies (among other things) from a few years back. If you do a search for the economic calculation argument (or ECA), you'll find an in-depth discussion of production in a socialist society by the same author. -Hydrostatic 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Communism, not Communist states

Reading this article, one gets the impression that it aims to give a brief history of Communist states more than anything else. Yet this is supposed to be the article about communist ideology and principles, not history. We have two other articles for those (Communist state and History of communism). I think a major overhaul of this article is necessary, placing a lot more emphasis on the various theories and branches of communist thought. Also, some text needs to be exchanged between Communism and Communist state (moved from here to there or vice versa). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the outline of the communism entry is not the problem. Other encyclopedias and sourcebooks are also heavy on the hisotry of communist regimes in their general entries on communism because the character and development of the various theories and branches thoughts in the communist movement are so intertwined following the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. Further, since Wikipedia's readership is mostly going to be a Western one, we are probably expected to emphasize the notability of communism as a political movement-- one that ruled a third of the world's population-- over conjectured Marxist pictures of communist society like In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. Hence, I agree with a comment by Fred Bauder made earlier this month when he was calling for increased empahsis on the seizure of power by Lenin and his associates: That event and its aftermath was perhaps the major historical event of the 20th century. I'm not exactly sure how this should be expressed however. Fred Bauder 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Communist state is in much worse shape than this article; that's the article in need of a major overhaul, as opposed to this one. For a discussion concerning problems with that article, see the conversations between Squiddy and me on Talk:Communist state. 172 | Talk 08:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that we should speak less of historical countries and events, but that we should concentrate on the history (and substance) of communist ideas. For example, in speaking of Lenin, we should devote at least as much space to Leninist theory and ideology as we devote to Lenin's practical actions. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Nikodemos is right. This wouldn't necessarily mean that all or most of the information on Communist states should be excised, but more on communist philosophy should be added. Two particular points that I think ought to be addressed more fully are 1. Marx's ideas about the far-future communist state and 2. the ideological (as opposed to political) differences between Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. -- Aiwendil42

I also agree. Look at the article at liberalism for example. That is a good article that points out whats relevant on the subject. That is a history of liberal ideas, not a history of liberal states. This communism article should have a chapter on so called communist states, (most of that can be dealt with in the article on communist states) The article on communism should have focus on communist ideas and theories. From Marx to Lenin to the leninists. But also the left- and council communists, the anarchist communists, the situationists, the modern ultra-lef, etcetera.

The liberal article deals with Smith, Locke, Hayek and Popper. In the same way the communism article should deal with Bordiga, Pannekoek, Trotsky and Malatesta. For example.

Since communism is much broader and more diverse then liberalism, I really think that this should be presented.

My suggestion is that we delete and move large parts of this article to other articles, like communist states or history of communism for example. And add a lot of new information instead. I would have done this myself if I felt that my english was advanced enough (I have however done this in other wikipedias), but I fear it's not. Yet there are a lot of extremly intelligent and knowledgeable on the internet. I am sure many are well fitted for the task.

81.230.36.59 12:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Communism in fiction

I added a section with this name, currently it is very short. Feel free to expand/correct.

Note that famous anti-utopias like "1984" should not go there, as they don't call the depicted society communist. Crocodealer 07:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

deaths

I've removed the recent additions asserting number of deaths by communism. The highly controversial figure is better discussed in the criticism of communism article. The figure inserted was by the historian Rummel, known for arriving at higher figures than anyone else, see for example[28] and the criticism page. Jens Nielsen 10:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The internal links box

The box on the right hand side, which contains links to other wikipedia articles, has a section called 'Communist States'.

Should the Soviet Union be included in it? The other states mentioned are still communist, with none of the other defunct Asian, African and European communist states mentioned. So then why is the USSR there?

Perhaps it should be put in a new 'Defunct Communist States' section, along with the other now non-communist countries (Like Poland, Czechoslovakia, ETC)? PJB 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth

I believe it's not true any more. Xx236 10:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Castro is fighting against what he calls the 'New Rich', people who profitted from the slight loosening of the economy. PJB 15:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition

I had recently added Earliest Communism but forgot to log in im just metntioning that this

is not a 100% fact that I know becuse I had heard a teacher metnion it so im going by my knowlege and what I had heard PLEASE change any mistakes in it. Thanks Helblazer112.

Hi Helblazer112. I've moved your comments to the bottom of the page as discussion pages on wikipedia read down rather than up. The communism you are referring to is often referred to as Primitive communism. There is an article on that, so we only need to have a summary here (and some editors might say we don't need that). Perhaps you want to have a look at the other article and use it to reword your addition here. Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have excised the paragraph on Primitive communism, as this is both better described elsewhere (as a theory), and pure unverifyable conjecture. Added a link to the (quite decent) page on Primitive communism is the Early Communism section. Doubtless someone will find this objectable, given the topic :). pbannister 19:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist communism as a school of... or not

Anarchist communism was creat by Kropotkin.He was an anarchist, not communist.His anarchist and communalist ideas are part of the world of anarchism. Anarchists are not communists. And it is not a school of communism. Long ago there was a split in the workers movement, between the socialists, in communists and anarchists. (sorry, because my bad english)--82.83.77.140 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But that was a schism between the Marxists and the anarchists; before the schism communism and anarchism were the economic and political theories of the same society. Therefore, anarchist communism is certainly not a "school of Marxism". Neither is Christian communism. Christian communists and Christian anarchists were never involved in a schism either (although the latter tends to be more radical in proscription). Therefore really there cannot be said that communist anarchism isn't a school of communism, because there are plenty of schools of communism that did not arise out of the schism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Before the split (schism) all of it (theories, politicians) were "socialistic"/"socialists". They were all together "socialists", not "communists". But communism and communists (Weitling for example) was part of it. "Socialism" is the science-term of all these theories/societies/political movements. There are/were utopic socialism (Thomas More, [later] Weitling,...), anarchism, marxism and other socialist movements. That's schools of socialism. The political movements/theories looks/looked each other(in some aspects), but it still stays/stayed different theories/schools of socialism. Bakunins and Kropotkins theories were born(-that's the reason of the split-)in/growths up by or after the split. They are "anarchists" and "socialists", not "communists" (Marx, Weitling, More...). Kropotkins theory is a school of anarchism.

The birth of "religious communism" is longer, longer time ago(longer before industrial-time and workers movement). I don't know much about it, but i think the term communism in this case is already correct.--82.83.87.77 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but communism advocates a stateless society, literally one of "communes". Anarchist communism especially stresses the community element of anarchism, and hence it is a school of communism. Even after the schism, as an anarchist school it can be considered part as the school of communism: the concept of communism did not arise from the schism, it arose from the Greeks. The concept of anarchism also arose from the Greeks; they considered them distinctive, though it was common for philosophers to write about systems espousing both. So, it is not a school of post-schism communism, but it remains a school of communism nonetheless. The idea of socialism really arose only much much later. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkin have creat his anarchistic "system"/theory in 19.th century not in antiquity times. This idea isn't religious communism, and isn't a part of communism before the split, it is a big, specially part of anarchism after the split. At one side Marx(marxists), at the other side Bakunin(anarchists-anarchism of Bakunin). Weitling and others was dead, no "Weitling"-communists on top. Marx were calls"communist"/"communism", and Bakunin called his ideads "antiautority socialism" ("Anarchism"). Other communists was not there. In this line of antiautority socialism Kropotkin creat his special kind of anarchism. (sorry, because my bad english,)--82.83.87.77 04:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but just because Marxists called themselves the communists, didn't mean communists are Marxists or that Marxists are communists. In effect, this article describes "communism", with a heavy emphasis on Marx because it has the most impact, but allowing plenty of other ideologies to be defined under it as a "school", because Marx-centrism can't claim everything. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The last aspect is right, not every school of communism is marxism. Apart from marx there were other communists. That's communism, to. To the first aspect. Bakunin calls the marxists as "states-communists", the opposite of that was his "antiautority socialism"-/"Anarchism", he sad. Marxists are communists. Other communists, like Weitling or other communists not marxists, but no anarchists to. Kropotkins ideas are in the line of antiautority socialism, not in the line of Marx, or Weitling or other communists. --82.83.92.10 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there are communists who are anarchists. "Communalism" is really just a euphemism. It was a communist school of thought in the purest sense; it was the most schismatic of the schools, but it was a school of communism nonetheless. It doesn't matter that Weitling, Marx, etc. were all communists and weren't anarchists, that still doesn't make Kropotkin not a communist. People might use "communalist" to clarify any misconceptions (because there exist people who don't know the difference and non-Marxist communists might want to avoid giving them a lecture)....and besides, Kropotkin's anarchist communism was a radical idea; it was not "merely" communalist. It doesn't matter that the rest were communists, anarchist communism is still a school of communism. The only reason that people wouldn't call it a school of communism is to avoid the non-anarchist tendencies of the other schools, or to avoid associating with the other schools, but that would not make anarchist communism not a school of communism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Kropotkins ideas/theorys are part of anarchism. It is in the line of antiautory socialism, not in the line of any school of communism. In political-science contexts it isn't a "school of communism". The term "communalism" is not only euphemism, at all. In political science the term have wide distribution, it is used to classified, some political ideas and concepts.

Kropotkin do not call himself aa a "communist". He at himself and the science call him "anarchist". (communist Anarchism=) Anarchist communism is no school of communism, it is a specially school of anarchism. "communism in the purest sense" is false. It's not objectiv and POV, i think.--82.83.91.61 07:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article on "antiauthority socialism" as I said. Communalism is used in political science, but communism can be considered a branch of the communalist (as well as communitarianist) philosophy, just most radical. Communism is effectively the most radical of the socialist philosophies, and anarchism is effectively the most radical of the libertarian philosophy. It would thus make sense for "anarchist communism" to fall under both being communist, and libertarian, even though he never called himself a libertarian. Council communism, as you notice, is both a school of communism and a school of anarchism. Noam Chomsky also recognises this (in conjunction with anarcho-syndicalism). This clearly establishes the fact that anarchist communism can be considered a school of communism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You said, (at template disc):"Leninsm sees the need for an intermediary socialist state (state socialism), but many communists do not see it that way. Communism and anarchism were really originally synonyms, just that Lenin begin to emphasise the "commun" root, but ironically the concept of "commune" was destroyed because of his revolution "-

That means before lenin everybody means that communism and anarchism were synonyms. That's not true. Marx and many other communists don't like the anarchist way to emphasis the destruction of the state. They are feared of useless and absurd destructive mania. And the anarchists don't think so. That was the reason of the split of socialist movement.

The "stateless society" weren't a communist ideal alone. It is not in center of communist theory, but it 's a part of it. An intermdiary socialist state is not the idea of Lenin. It 's the idea of marx first. Lenin refered to this Marx-idea. You could say that Lenin betray the ideas of marx; but not the ideas of the anarchists, because they have not the same ideas/"commun" concept/theory like marx. Or you could say that marx betray the other socialists and the "socialist" concept of "commune", in theoretical way.

After Lenin and his revolution and before Lenin: Anarchism (anarchism by Bakunin, anarchist communism, mutualism,...) and communism (marxism..., Weitling-communism (it 's not the same like marxism),....earlierer kinds of- Other communists exists, but they are not "anarchist-communists"-) don't were synonyms for the same. The terms have history, yes. But we are not in the 16 th century. There was much history ago, and the terms are not the same like in in the middleages, because these theorys were create later. And Bakunin and so on aren't communists at their times and aren't today.

You said (at template disc.page):"The theories of what espouse the final state are roughly similar, the theories of how it is implemented is not. It still is communist. It is merely two sides of the same coin,"-

The final society, not "state".

Yes, similar NOT the same.

The ideologys of Communism and Anarchism don't mean exactly the same. We have two articles here, " communism" and "anarchism". But they are in the same family. The term/"familyname" (or "the same coin") of anarchism and communism is "socialism" not "communism". (-collectivism is emphasesed by communism and by almost all schools of anarchism, but i dont't mentioned it in my post. -template disc)

Political science is another thing (and more complicated) like naturel science, i think:

"Libertary marxists", dont heard about that..(template disc page). Marx were didn't like that term, i think. "marxism" is "marxism", and not libertary, he would say .We don't´have these article. But there is council communism (yes there is some positiv reationship even to Marx), that 's another thing.

Noam Chomsky said that schools of communism and schools of anarchism are the same thing, you discripe. He is a professor of linguistics, and he is more a political reader (anarcho-syndiikalist) than a political scientist. Anarchists and communists (not marxism only) are both kinds of socialists/Socialism,yes. We have article to Anarchism and we have article to communism, that's not totally the same. Kropotkin is called anarchist(radical libertarian) if he wants or not. We have theorys and we have terms and we have to differented it and to make understandable that and to put in order that.--82.83.90.203 09:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

They're not the same in the sense they have different emphases, and that you have anarcho-capitalism, etc. (which some people think is an oxymoron, and some don't), anarchist communism explicitly states both anarchist and communist principles, because previously, the approach to communism did not explicitly state whether a transitionary period was permissible or not, or in anarchism, whether leftism is the way to go. Hence. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Communism and anarchism are both part of socialism-movement. But the theorys, principles and emphasis are different. your objection at anarcho-capitalism is legitimate at this theme. There is a controversial inside anarchism.Sure we can say that's not workers-movement(not socialism). anarcho-capitalism was create much more later and there is individualism. We have Techno communism (there is used the term "communism"to), it is a modern theory of utopian socialism.--82.83.72.185 12:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrongs in the marxism chapter

"However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually give way to a higher phase in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism."

This is wrong. There is no state in Marx' "first phase of communism". And it's actually quite far from Lenin's perception of "socialism".

For Lenin, the first phase of communism (which he calls socialism) means that the working class takes power over the existing process of production through a [workers-) state.

For Marx the first phase of communism is something completly different. For Marx, this phase is identical to the free association of producers, the abolition of the divsion between producers and means of production, teh abolition of the property relations as such.

For Marx there is no such thing as a communist stage with a state, commodity production or wage labour.

"To this day there has been a split in the workers movement between Marxist communists and anarchists. The anarchists are against, and wish to abolish, every state organisation. Among them, anarchist-communists such as Peter Kropotkin believed in an immediate transition to one society with no classes"

Where is the difference? Marx did not believe in a state (have you guys only read the manifesto? One of his earliest and least good texts...), that is quite clear in his later works on the Paris commune and his later prefaces to the manifesto.

And Marx also believed in capitalism - revolution - communism. Not some capitalism - revolution - socialism - communism crap. Sure, there is a "transitional phase", but it's called revolution and nothing else.

But large parts of article as a whole is not very good at all. I think we should delete or move most of it and rewrite it from scratch. The article on liberalism is a good model. 90% of that article is not covered with information about liberal state, it is largly about liberalism ideology and liberal history of ideas. The communism article should be modeled in a similar way. You know, there is an article on communist states, why not put most of it there, and just keep about one chapter on the subject in the communim article? But most important of all, let the different chapters be written by people who know what they are talking about, instead of little school boys who have read the Manifesto, a school book or maybe a book by Karl Popper and then think that they know everything on the subject.

Marx viewed the state a product of class divisions, nothing more and nothing less. Indeed we need simply glance at the Manifesto to see that it is "merely the instrument of one class for oppressing another". To Marx there is nothing inherently wrong with this as a proletarian state could perform the function of oppressing the bourgeoisie. This is where he and the anarchists differed, the latter believing that the state plays some role in perpetuating class divisions and whose abolishment was key GreatGodOm 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Communism

Hi all, I have tried to make some edits, but they do not remain. As soon as I close the page and re-open it the old text re-appears. So, this edit concept is false concept, or am I missing something? Anyway, what I wanted to say is that majority of discutants are completely off the mark when discussing communism. As someone who was born in a SOCIALIST country and taught Marxism, I can tell you all that there are only a few here who correctly understand the SCIENTIFIC PHILOSOPHY that communism actually is. Communism is NOT an ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Communism is a theoretical platform for a search for better society. Ultimately, through evolution, socialist society (which is not some utopia as many of you believe - I suggest you read Marx and Engels, to understand before you post, and do understand what you have read) would reach the ultimate level in development of human society where freedom would be complete. However, that does not imply anarchy or degradation of society as you anglo-saxons among us keep wrongly believing. The ultimate goal of communism is to DEVELOP a civilised and prosperous society. One that is built on and supported by science.

I would like to write correct article for upload. How one does that?

Regards,