Talk:Communist state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1 -- Archive 2 -- Archive 3 -- Archive 4 -- Archive 5 --Archive 6

[edit] The special case of China

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

If corruption and lobbyism controls law enforcement and political parties then perhaps they should be called neoliberal instead, which can be compared with United States. The interesting thing is not who controls something but what controls them. Money control us all. --TobiasBengtsson 15:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If there are or are not parallels between a Communist state and other kinds of political movements is irrelevant for the previous remark by 172.--Ebralph 15:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Self Serving Term

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

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


[edit] Naming

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

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

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

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

[edit] In what world?

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

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

[edit] Article is not a NPOV

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

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


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


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

There are two - three definitions of socialism. There is broad socialism, that is all ideologies that are basically anti-capitalist and equalitarian. There is socialism meaning a (broad) socialist state (narrow socialism) and there is Marxist socialism which generally means the second. Thus all "communist states" are really socialist (!) (narrow). Communism similarly has three meanings, a socialist (broad) society with decisions made at a community level, characterised by minimal hierarchy, the end result of Marxist theory (not really fully explained) (both these first two do not have a nation/state) and what are commonly called communist states. --harrismw 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have always found this article an attempt to hide critique that should be in the Communism article. Any attempt to make historical critique of Communism even weaker will result in moving back the historical examples in more detail to Communism. Ultramarine 19:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Additions needed.

There needs to be infomation about Chile.

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

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

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

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

[edit] NPOV?

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


Actually i think there is extraordinary bias throuought the article

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

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

[edit] Ultramarine

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

The deleted paragraphs were bad enough bad you have made numerous POV changes in every paragraph, like excluding that the Soviet Union become a net importer of cereals. Ultramarine 04:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine, every country is a net importer of something. There is a great deal of room for legitimate disagreement on all of the removals to which you are objecting. This article is not a place to bring up every problem in every single party state ruled by a Communist Party. 172 06:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
the problem with the criticism section is that there's too much "critics say this, advocates say that" that can be cut down on. there are certain things that have happened in Communist states (improvements in education/healthcare as well as political repression and economic problems) that we can state as facts and then add certain people's interpretation of those facts -- we don't need to say "critics point out" every single sentence. J. Parker Stone 06:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I'm wondering if someone has slipped me some psychedelic substances tonight, but I am in complete agreement with Trey Stone here. The "critics say this, advocates say that" has been annoying stylistic feature of this article since its troubled inception more than two years ago... Ultramarine, the bulk of Trey Stone's changes were not POV-related one way or another. Most consisted of improvements in the writing. I am going to revert back to Trey Stone's version for now pending further discussion. 172 06:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
This is of course exactly the place to point out the failings of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years. No censorship or revisionism. Ultramarine 13:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
ultramarine, my edits are not POV-related -- in fact they did not change the previous version at all, aside from "they were a net importer of cereal" and the last two paras (how many times do we need to be reminded that Trotskyists don't think historical Communism is "real" communism?) what i am trying to do is streamline this article, particularly the criticisms section, which is extremely bloated. we can include all the important critiques of communism in there without making it long-winded. J. Parker Stone 22:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
As anyone can see [1], you made numerous POV changes. Another deletion was this argument "Critics argue that past evils in an old regime cannot be used to justify new ones; otherwise supporters of Hitler could justify his deeds by pointing to past human rights crimes by the German Empire in Africa." Or changing somewhat disputed to disputed for the numbers killed. Ultramarine 22:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
i changed a rather obscure argument into a more common one (ie, that Stalinist, Maoist, etc. suffering was more widespread than any previous regime.) as for "somewhat disputed," that was related to the length of the article and the wordiness of several sentences, though i suppose we could add it back in. but i reiterate that i am quite an anti-Communist and as such have no motives for POV changes to enhance Communist states' images. J. Parker Stone 22:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Then do not remove the critics arguments. Ultramarine 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
...dude, forget it, i'm done here for now. hopefully more people can join this discussion. J. Parker Stone 00:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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

He deleted numerous arguments. Ultramarine 19:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
No, he cleaned up the writing with a number of factual statements stated as arguments that should not have been. As native English speakers, please give us the benefit of the doubt and point out on the talk page the relevant "arguments" he removed. 172 22:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Have already pointed them out here. Do not again make a large scale deletion of arguments and facts you do not like. If you do not like the English, correct it, do not censor. Ultramarine 00:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
You have not pointed anything, and Trey Stone's edits were a copyediting. Also, do not accuse editors of censorship, a personal attack that will get you sent to arbitration. 172 00:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
As anyone can see above, I have pointed out several deletions of arguments. Ultramarine 00:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
No, you have just made accusations against other editors. 172 00:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Here is a comparision between edits: [2] Ultramarine 01:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I am aware of the differences between the two versions. Note Trey Stone's original explanation. 172 01:03, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Explanations? I see no explanation for example for removing the last two paragraphs. And why are you removing new arguments? And why is the end of the article incomprehensible with numerous spelling errors in your version? [3] Ultramarine 01:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
See Trey Stone's original explanation: ::the problem with the criticism section is that there's too much "critics say this, advocates say that" that can be cut down on. there are certain things that have happened in Communist states (improvements in education/healthcare as well as political repression and economic problems) that we can state as facts and then add certain people's interpretation of those facts -- we don't need to say "critics point out" every single sentence. J. Parker Stone 06:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 172 01:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Why are you not answering my questions? Why are you insisting on a version with numerous spelling errors? And Trey Stone argument may be used for removing "critics say", not for large scale deletion of the arguments of the critics. Ultramarine 01:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Those "arguments" were unsourced gibberish. 172 01:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
There are numerous references. Are you denying that the criticized historical events took place? Why are you doing large scale deletion of critical arguments and insisting on a poorly spelled article? Ultramarine 01:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
What events? This article is incoherent mess by and large. Trey Stone's copyedit helps, but it needs a thorough rewrite, and I am working on it. 172 01:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in terms

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

I agree. This article really needs a rewrite. Frankly I think just restoring the very first version of this article by Jtdirl would be an improvement. 172 | Talk 07:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I put that there as a continuation of what was already there. It said that the Communist parties in those countries call their policy socialist, but it didn't say why. And I did. It was meant to represent the ideological state, hence the flowery language. Communism is a bit like '60 communes or kibbutzes on a larger scale, where there is no government. This is essential to the ideology and in contradiction with the concept of a state. And if an article is on a term that is in contradiction with itself (at least for those who adhere to the ideology it refers to) then surely that needs to be pointed out. Workers of the world unite, no more borders and all that. It hasn't turned out that way in reality, but the reason for that is that man isn't ready for it (or so the ideology goes). And I thought a reference to this 'new man' could do with a mention of Che Geuvarra. Though I'd rather have had a link to an article on that, but the present new man article is about something completely different. But then mentioning one of the leading communist thinkers from one of the remaining Communist States isn't too strange. I've put it back with a slight modification. DirkvdM 12:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that no one is using the term "communist state." The article is using the term "Communist state," and all that means is a state governed solely by the Communist Party, nothing more. J. Parker Stone 20:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear, there's that capitalisation again. I can't wrap my head around that. I've understood that rules are (or used to be) very relaxed, but that one use of capitals is for proper nouns. But that doesn't apply here, does it? Do you mean to say that the word communist (no capital) in 'communist State' is an adjective? But that's more like Dutch, where one writes 'Dutch', with a capital, when referring to the language, but without a capital in 'the dutch language'. But that's not the case in the English (!) language, so you couldn't mean that, right?. What then? DirkvdM 09:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
What a mean is that a Communist state ("state" isn't capitalized) refers to a Communist Party-run state, the latter phrase just says it with more words. You're right that there's never been an nice, peachy-keen "communist state" where everyone's equal and happy and blah, but that's not the point of this article. And in any case the many rationalizations of the Trotskyites, post-Cold War communists, and other radical-left offshoots about why the Soviet system wasn't "true" communism is mentioned in more than enough detail, we don't need Mr. Che weighing in in the intro. J. Parker Stone 09:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I understood what you meant by 'Communist state', but you compared it with 'communist state' and I still don't get what you mean by that nor what the only difference in writing (the capitalisation) stands for. I notice now that something similar to what I wrote is in the third paragraph. But there the term 'socialism' is used, when it really should be 'communism'. I've merged the two and dropped the 'New Man' bit (whilst grinding my teeth) and also the link to collectivism because the inserted communism link covers that (and anyway, the definition of collectivism also applies to fascism, I'd say). There's a more logical flow to the story now, I think. DirkvdM 15:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
DirkvdM, the rules are not relaxed for capitalization, as organized political parties are always proper nouns. This is an article on states run by Communist Parties, like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the Communist Party of China, the Communist Party of Korea, the Communist Party of Cuba, et al., so this article is on "Communism" in the sense of the large "c." 172 | Talk 16:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course, 'Communist Party' is a proper noun, but 'Communist state' isn't, so that doesn't explain the captalisation. The 'relaxed' bit I read elsewhere, but the same guy told me that a proper noun can be recognised by the lack of an article, but here one can have a of the Communist Party and it can be plural too. I really have to make this a little study of this because the logic still eludes me (note that I'm Dutch). By the way, what do you think of my edit? Looks better now, yes? DirkvdM 16:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
While I appreciate you removing the "New Man" Che thing I still think the previous version was much more concise. We are not getting into what a "true communist society" is in the intro, we are talking about states ruled by the Communist Party, as specified at the top, so this is unnecessary. As for the other edits, they are adding tangential material to what was already explained. J. Parker Stone 03:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Considering the misconceptions people have about communism (namely that it is what Communist states stand for) it seems necessary to give some explanation in the intro. I agree, though, that that should not take over the intro. However, I have added information whilst actually reducing the amount of text slightly (well, I deleted some too). So it is now actually more concise. And a 'layman' (someone who hasn't a clue about communism - an important potential reader) will understand this more easily, I think. Still, maybe the (now) third paragraph could be moved to the next section. Or maybe even the second paragraph. The remaining sentence could then be combined with the first sentence of the second section plus a slight referral to ideological communism, something like this:
A Communist state is a state governed by a single political party which follows the principles of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, a country ruled by a Communist party is not automatically a "Communist state" (it may have been elected democratically). The term refers to absolute, unconditional power by one party. Also, it refers to historical states, so states that exist or have existed. These have little to do with ideological Communism, which is a Utopia in which no state exists, so in this sense the term 'Communist state' is a contradiction in terms. Communist states usually call themselves Socialist states (as in the 'Union of Socialist Soviet Republics').
By 'tangential information' I suppose you mean 'along the same lines'. Any examples? DirkvdM 09:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
a Communist state is a state governed solely by the Communist Party, we do not need to get into "communist state" (which isn't even used as a term anyway) per Marxist theory because that is not what this article is for. i'd really appreciate it if the intro was reverted back to the much more concise version without the convoluted wording about "utopian phase" and how "Communist state" is a "contradiction" when it isn't. J. Parker Stone 03:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The word 'regime' isn't neutral

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

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

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

[edit] "contradiction in terms

The following POV (vulgar and erroneous) removed:

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

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

There have been edit wars over this. I put it backin a milder form, saying not that it is a contradiction, but that in a certain sense it is a contradiction. Also, I kept it short, resulting in a primitive definition. Of Communism, mind you, not Marxism. DirkvdM 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware of edit wars over this. They have eventually led to a reasonable tradeoff. Brevity is not a justification of incorrectness. "In certain sense" is a weasel word and has no place in the intro. I you wish, you may dwell upon the "contradiction in terms" in the relevant section, "definition of the communist state." mikka (t) 00:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

[edit] 100% communist votes

Removed as irrelevant and speculation:

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

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

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

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

[edit] peasants

Rm false overgeneralization and restored original text:

Marx predicted that the revolution would come from the oppressed laborers fighting capitalism, but in reality it was usually peasants (especially in China) led by intellectuals. The intellectuals may have followed Marx's ideology, but, for example, in Russia the population was simply revolting against the poverty brought about by the Tsars, as they had already been doing for decades.
"usually peasants" is false. It was not "especially in china", but "only in china and some other states".
"Simply revolting" is a prerequisite of any successful revolution, as opposed to a "palace coup", so the word "simply" is silly. mikka (t) 15:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Trotskyist criticisms

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

Reasonable, to a degree, but the fact of the criticism must be mentioned in the intro as well. mikka (t) 01:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with mikka, it should be mentioned in the inro. It is important for people to understand that very few of those who calls themselves communists supports any kind of communist state. Anarchist communists, left communists, council communists, operaists, autonomous marxists, situationists, trotskyists, et cetera are all opposed to the communist states. Only the marxist-leninists (who have always taken an anti-communist position in every class struggle) supports and defends these kinds of states (ant not even all of them). We fought the marxist-leninists in Spain, in Hungary, in Italy, in France and all over the world...we do not want to be associated with them or their horrible states.

[edit] pharmaceutical industry in Cuba?

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

[edit] Reverts

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

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

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

no explaination, [sic] no revert
Or what, you will revert me in turn? What does that imply, exactly? That we have equal abilities and privileges as Wikipedia editors. There is no more neutral presumption of the correctness of inserting the material any more than deleting it, and you'd think on already contentious issues like this there would be a high level of scrutiny to new, significant additions, especially parts that read like crude ideological ranting.
I think "what is exactly happening" (if more than a cryptic reference to a revert war) is that you are presently behaving a bit too much like a lord; whether I can or do revert is not your decision. --TJive 02:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
You don't need to explain an edit that is an addition, unless it is disputed. Deleting information and reverting does require an explanation. I have mostly added info - I generally prefer to leave what is already there alone.And about the intro. That the term is controversial is proven by the ongoing controversy here, I'd say. And I have weakened the oxymoron thing by stating that 'it is claimed that...'. Which makes it true. And it is relevant.
I'd like to note that you reverted everything I did, including linguistic errors I corrected. DirkvdM 08:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  1. a controversial term-Nearly always (and in this case most particularly) an attempt to negatively qualify the significance or reliability of a topic or even the article that follows it. That there is ideological disagreement about the value of a term or its subject does not mean it should be introduced as being primarily a subject of "controversy". It looks poor and would be so in the case of "social justice is a controversial term for...." or "capitalism is a controversial economic system" and so on and on.
  2. From this we have moved from exacerbating the merit of "controversy" to speaking on its behalf, e.g. "The rest of the article will, however, use the aforementioned definition that" which basically gives the impression, "it is not right, but this is what the article will say". If there is a significant and fundamental disagreement over the applicability of the term for the purpose of the article then the proposal should be made to alter it in this manner rather than attempting to water down the effect of what is stated (later also at, Note that all of the above is about Communist states, not about Communism.).
  3. There is an attempt to utilize the article for ideological tit-for-tat even though it doesn't directly concern the topic. If a criticism is that, "communist states have caused X", then "other states have done something similar to X" is nothing but a logical fallacy and it is only based on the qualifications and arguments of Wikipedia editors. The phrase, "most poor capitalist countries" allows for an imprecision essential to not directly answering the challenge of causation (what is asserted of communism) and merely deflects the question. To "[c]ritics charge that Communist compulsory education was replete with pro-Communist propaganda and censored opposing views" we thus have the addition of, "something similar could be said of education anytime anywhere, including present capitalist countries". Could it? What countries are we referring to and how are they "capitalist"? Who argues this? Since what is posited is that it "could" be argued then what is the relevance of the statement, the musing of a particular editor?
Specific to the education issue: what is considered propaganda or not is a matter of POV in itself. It might be a better idea to drop that sentence altogether. For example: in Germany you generally have about at least 2 or 3 times a course on modern history which focuses on the evils of the 3rd Reich. Now people who actually did the deed of course didn't see what they did as evil. From their POV it is Propaganda against them. Even someone who agrees with the basic must feel that the amount of space given is Propaganda. To take a less conrtoversial example: the way the US is organized today was far less clear to the people actually founding it. (e.g. parties - most founding farthers disliked them) Still, it is tought in a fashion that one could understand as propaganda. The problem here is far more basic: any teaching can be coined as propaganda, depending on who is talking about it. Especially with children, the idea is to teach the values of the society. As such it probably will always be propaganda.
Of which the outcome of such a debate is not up to us to decide and which has no bearing on the fact that it is not conducive to this particular article. --TJive 19:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  1. These arguments and potential arguments (not factual statements, but conditional and tepid assertions) are never attributed but instead come from the omniscient narrative. This is, however, at least partly due to the belated industrialisation in the Soviet Union. Also, there is the risk that a rise in affluence after the partial change to capitalism in China will cause even more pollution (eg, if a billion Chinese would start driving private cars in stead of bicycles).
  2. But the communist ideology arose largely because of the exploitation of workers in the 19th century, which was also likened to slavery. Who says that is why communism arose? Who is defining "exploitation" and qualifying its existence at any point in time? Who likened it to slavery? What does that have to do with the subject? The topic is about communist states, which we are otherwise being told have nothing to do with the "theory" of communism, something wholly different.
I agree that the discussion about communism itself is a bit off topic and a bit sloppy in its way, but not wrong per se. Without detailing too much a good first stab it wouldn't be too wrong, don't you think?
It is bad form to argue that "communist state" has nothing to do with "communism" per se and then argue that the things "alleged" about communist states can be deflected by a look into the rationale of communism itself; moreover, it is hardly encyclopedic in either intent or prose. --TJive 19:12, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  1. And although the birth control program in China may have averted a demographic disaster, it was also a violation of human rights. Who says it averted a disaster and how, here, do we know the causes of a speculative event?
Well, I doubt seriously that the Chinese would have taken the measures they had, if they didn't see a disaster looming. Of course sourceing it would have been a better approach.
  1. Eventually it seems that Dirk comes to the realization that rather than editing he is presenting polemical arguments; Also, one may argue that capitalist western countries have gathered much of their wealth through exploitation of workers, slavery and imperialism, but even if that were still still done it would not be an excuse for others to do something similar. Has nothing to do with the topic but attempts to qualify events that are recounted of the subject, "but even if that were still still done"; this, again, is poor even as any attempt at an argument, it sounds bad, and it has no place here. --TJive 00:00, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain why you see certain edits as POV. They make it far easier to judge your arguments. I feel that most of your arguments tend to do with the sourceing then with anything else. POV might have been a poor choice of word though and misleading. Your bigger bone is with the quality of the edit. It might have been more constructive to suggest how to improve on what is inserted instead of just removing it with a POV comment. --Ebralph 01:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting analysis from TJive and well stated. What is noticible in this article on first sight, is the left-over Cold War mythology that Capitalism & Communism are competing ideologies (this idea of capitalism as an ideology will continue for some time, unfortunately). While Communism can be aptly described as flawed ideology, and 150 years of historical experience gives us license to render such a judgement, one flaw of Communist ideology was labeling Capitalism as an ideology, when in fact it is not.
Simple economic iron laws of nature state---> You cannot consume more than you produce. There must be a (call it what you will) surplus, savings, profit, produce in excess of consumption, whatever name you wish to assign. In other words, no economic system exists that does not produce a profit. History has demonstrated, no economic system exists that does not use a profit motive. This is simply more evidence of the fraduelent basis of Communist ideology, (a) that "captialism" is a competeing ideology, and (b) that Communism is somehow above the dirty low base motivation of self greed and profit, etc. As TJive has pointed out, the "attempt to utilize the article for ideological tit-for-tat" needs to be addressed. Ultitmately the hard cold facts of human experience are going to stomp the bejeezus out of ideological daydreams. nobs 01:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

In light of the democides done by Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Godless/Leninist/Stalinist/Hitlerite (yes, Hitler was a Godless Socialist too) /Maoist (I don't care what name you wanna give it, and I don't give a shit about the differences), 150 years is indeed plenty of time. And we are morally obligated to make a judgement. nobs 04:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Communism does not try to produce something out of thin air. The problem you aptly state is the fact that selfishness is an important part of any working system. Communism requires an almost angel like thought for your fellow man - something that doesn't happen from today to tomorrow. I personaly find two things far more problematic about the ideology:
  • It's prediction of history; anyone wanting to predict the future of human development renders himself unbelievable. It leads to people trying to fit everything in its preconceptions - even if it has to use force. Religions haven't performed better on that score.
  • It didn't grow organicly (like other systems have) and as such disrupted the corresponding societies. Any time a society was confronted with a radicly different system of government, those societies have broken down. Trying to change a system so fundamentally generally leads to great pain and most of the time failure. Of course that can be said about experiments with trying to plant democracy and a capitalistic economy to other countries.
Of course we're not talking about Communism here, so the above doesn't really matter and that is the big point from TJive. --Ebralph 10:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Alas I also have very little time now, not enough for a full response right now. Just some points. Firstly, of course, why revert everything, including linguistic corrections? About whether all this should be in this article, I share TJive´s doubts. But if there is tit there should also be tat, so to say. Maybe the whole ´Criticism and advocacy´ section should be removed and the 'tit for tat' moved to the Communism article.

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

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

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

I have to wonder what your expectations are for the use of this forum. This isn't a debating hall and I don't care for your crude analysis of "capitalist propaganda" more than the several (ostensibly) more studious treatments of it elsewhere (from Marcuse and Chomsky to every other faux "media analyst" hack). Yet you persist almost as if you believe that others' eyes are gazing down from a true course and you are here to set them proper. Do you honestly believe you generally have answers that are not available to any others you speak to? Rather esteemed opinion I should say. Almost as much it serves to excuse the fact that certain sources do not say what you want them to, so we label the results in broad categorizations by geography and the alleged economic structure of the country. NYT vs. Granma-the only difference is perspective, right? --TJive 19:16, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
The belated industialisation in the USSR is a fact and obviously a partial cause of the fact that the environmental problems didn´t occur earlier. The threat of enormous polution in China (eg by cars) is so often mentioned in the media (at least in the Netherlands) that it certainly deserves a mention (at least as an addition to what was in the text). Same for the birth control program in China.
Communist ideology arose from the exploitation of workers. Of course. What else? Ever heard of Marx? :) DirkvdM 17:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Ideology

Let me give one simple illustration why Communist ideology is against nature: it condemns and outlaws the profit motive. A young man, unmarried, entering the work force has a powerful incentive to work hard, profit, make bucks, and impress a girl. Communism outlaws this. Any surprise (a) it failed (b) it never was more than pure fantasy? nobs 15:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have some major misconceptions. It abhors profiteering, but rewards those who have laboured to justify it. Ever heard of a gift economy? -- Natalinasmpf 16:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
This is off-topic, but ok. Your argumentation is faulty in several respects. An ideology can't be against nature: it is an interpertation of nature. Your basic statement - going back to Adam Smith - is that the collective profits by every participant of that collective acting in self-intrest. I guess by in large it has worked. But there are enough examples where it hasn't worked. That is why there are regulations to prevent those excesses. And there are opposing examples: enough Kibutze have worked in a Communist fashion - very well indeed. The connecting element was something else then monetary profit: it was the idea of settling of the country. The point is: the profit doesn't have to be wealth, it can be something else. Communism requires the participating people to work because they believe in the profit of everybody, not only yourself. A noble principle, if not terribly realistic because in the end a mass of people behave pretty primitive. But noble principles are important and trying to make them more then a fantasy too. That is what the founding fathers did: they tried to live a fantasy. Washington could have done something else then become President (ala Napoleon) but he chose not to [4]. If that is the only argument against Communism you fail to miss the more problematic points of Communist ideology. --Ebralph 17:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple facts of Nature: Profits pay

without profit, there is

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

Kibutze worked without monetary profits. Repeating your view doesn't make them true. BTW, the Law of gravity is not gravity itself. Newtons Law is an interpretation and in a wider sense an ideology. As it turned out, Einstein showed that it was faulty. Capitalism is an ideology, because it is an interpretation of reality - the same as the laws of physics. --Ebralph 18:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The Laws of Physics is an ideology? So Gravity is kinda like God, if a person so chooses to believe in God (or gravity), then it's true; however, all things being relative, than if a person so chooses not to believe in God, than God does not exist for that person, as does neither gravity, the Laws of Physics, or for that matter common traffic laws too, I suppose. nobs 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The Laws of Physics as stated by Newton or Einstein are an interpretation of reality, not reality itself. Just like a picture of a pipe is not a pipe. That is fine difference and even more important where non-mathematical things are concerned. So far you haven't bother to address my points and have reverted to rediculing my arguments. Very unconstructive, narrow minded and truely against furthering your horizon. That you view profits as essential for human existinence is fine with me but proves a certain lack of imagination. There are enough examples of societies working without being profit driven. It is a matter of mindset. --Ebralph 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
So it's all a matter of perception; for example, I do not believe in traffic laws or stop signs. No one can impose thier morality on me and force me to believe in thier reality or existence. You cannot legislate morality. Stops signs are fine for you, if you want to believe in them. For me, excerising my free right of choice to define reality & truth as I see fit, do not exist. nobs 20:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I can choose to ignore traffic signs. It might not be conductive to my health or my freedom, but I can ignore them. Just because the US has traffic lights and stop signs to solve the issue of a crossing doesn't mean that is the only solution. For example there are ways to build a crossing without traffic lights or signs. Morality has nothing to do with it. In fact what is moraly right is matter of time and society you live in. It is a legislation of the majority. --Ebralph 20:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Anarchists make an inherently moral arguement; also stop signs, like God, are a matter of relative perception. If you choose to believe that stop signs exist (like God), then for you they exist. If I choose to believe stop signs do not exist (like God really does not exist), then for me, neither stop signs, nor God, exist. Any elementary public school student can explain the inherent, infallible logic of this arguement. nobs 20:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Moral has nothing to do with it. Nor does the belief in existence of something. Read Descartes if you want that. I think you might find Plato's_allegory_of_the_cave more enlightning. I note that you still haven't made one argument supporting your views. So far you have done nothing else except to try to insult me more or less indirectly. Very constructive. --Ebralph 20:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It's all a matter of perception. You may say reality exists. You may get an arguement there. And you have not effectively rebutted the initial claim that people can be fed when consumption is greater than production, other than some vague reference to its a matter how you emotionally feel about the word "profit".nobs 20:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Turning around my point and trying to claim it for yourself is also not very productive. I not you still have not once brought an argument to support your view. But for your benefit: Communism does not try to consume more then production. That is your claim. What it says specificly is that the mode of distribution of limited resources should be different. Specificly the ownership of production facilities is addressed. It states that if they belong to all, then all should equally receive the benefit. --Ebralph 21:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
So now we are on to a new subject: legalized theft is the hallmark of a civilized society (we'll just ignore the questions regarding a person being paid for their labour now, comeback to it later, and deal with the new subject). nobs 21:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with legalized theft. The way that issue is settled is another matter. Look, if you want to educate yourself about Communism, read Marx and find out for yourself. All you do is dig for something to attack without taking a position yourself. Why don't you explain your POV? How can Profiteering be a law of nature? --Ebralph 21:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
BTW, the Pipe thing was a reference to This_is_not_a_pipe --Ebralph 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's ignore the emotional arguements around who profits, or "profiteering" generally for now; let's begin with a definition of profit (or what Marx called surplus value). Then we can see Marx's fatal flaw with his automatic assumption that, after the workers rise up & seize the means of production, that there would indeed be any "surplus value" derived from the means of production, having abolished the "profit motive". From there we can move onto Marx's second flaw, his understanding of, or rendering the use of the term "value". nobs 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
No emotional reference to "profiteering" intended. Indeed the argument is flawed in as far as that Marx believes that workers don't have a profit motive too. But the point you make is flawed as well: if people did not see the profit in monetary advantage, but in something different the thing would work. And that is a question of mind set. The important factor - which Kibutze have shown for example - is the mind set. Trying to force a mind set via law has always led to poor performance. Interestingly enough, the Russia of today is no better positioned then the Soviet Union of yesterday.
The other thing I have repeatedly pointed out, is that trying to predict future events is more then problematic. And that is where I see the major flaw in his theories. He tried to press history into a schema - a way too simple schema for humans. --Ebralph 22:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Digression: "Russia of today is no better positioned then the Soviet Union of yesterday"; can you explain how a person being able to (1) own their own home makes them "no better off"; (2) being able to participate in an employee stock purchase plan makes them "no better off"; (3) being able to employ another person for a routine job like unstopping a toilet without threat of imprisonment for Anti-Soviet agitation makes them "no better off". And I will reserve comment on the declaration that an "argument is flawed" based on a hypothetical supposition. nobs 01:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Ever asked a Russian? The last time I was in Jekatarienburg and had a few talks you would find that they don't seem to care very much for your arguments. Ownership of a house wasn't disallowed in the Soviet Union, a (average) Russian would never particpate in a stock purchase plan and employing someone for such routine things were even done in the 80's. In an ecomic sense the average pensioner is far worse off today and for the rest their situation has not really improved. As to the other point: it is not hypothetical, it is the important point of the whole construction. Your argument stands and falls with exactly that. As soon as monetary advantage looses importance, your point is moot. And that is the construction around which you build up your concepts. There have been societies in the past, present and presumeably future in which your argument does not count. --Ebralph 02:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting & half true. The situation in Russia is somewhat similiar to post American Civil War Reconstruction in the American South. If you were twenty years old and just declared free, you could go to town and seek your fortune. If you were 40 years old, and working the land was all you knew, and now you were unemployed because the system failed & you lost your job, it wasn't so easy to start over. Same was true for Isreal coming out of Eygpt, the older generations' carcuses fell in the wilderness, while the younger generation entered into promise. There is no new thing under sun. nobs 02:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
On what basis do you say half true? Have you been there? Using analogy to put a new historic situation in context is fine to give you a reference point. But you must always be very careful of the differences. I think you might find better comparisons in the French Revolution or Weimar Germany. I spoke specificly with Russians Age 20 - 50 mostly.
  • Russians will not invest in stocks, because they don't believe in money on paper in any form. I can't fault them terribly after have gone through a massive devaluation twice in the past 15 years. Most tend to find hard values (hardware, etc.) the only way to secure their existence. The trust in such institutions has been massivly undermined through these experiences and hasn't improved with what happened with Yukos.
  • People do not believe politicians work in their interest. The basic mind set is that if you're a politician your either corrupt or dead. Actually there have been several political murders over the years. With such a mind there is no way to make people believe you can move something. If you tell them: look at American and what they could do, they say that is America, this is Russia.
  • There is no way to work in Russia on bill. It's either cash up front or nothing at all. If you try to set up a business differently, you will surely crash. People do not feel much obligation to pay something. I know one business (big time company) that calculates 5% of it's payment moot, because that amount is forged. They employ people who do nothing else except clearing away the paperwork necessary for customs. And I'm not talking about some sort of military hardware but stones.
  • If you would pay your taxes in a legal fashion you can easily end up paying more then 100% of your earnings. I'm not joking. I wouldn't be surprised if Yukos did evade taxes but then you have no real alternative in Russia. All this doesn't take into account the sort of people you attract by acting illigal.
Sorry, your comparision is sorely lacking. --Ebralph 10:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Wiemar is likewise a good parallel. Let me end this digression with a question: Is the arguement a return to Soviet slavery would be in the interests of fairness, justice and equality? nobs 16:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Principly I'm happy that the Soviet Union vanished in the trash can of history. But: don't make the error to believe it was solely or mainly the ideology that led to its downfall and is the problem in Russia. The change of system has not led to a change in their financial situation. The major issue is the mind set of the people which Russia has inherited from pre-Peter the Great Era. Peter the Great believed he could order modernity. The following czars did nothing to improve the situation and in the end you have Lenin and Stalin who solified the worst of the mind set. Now they at least have a chance to free themselves of this and maybe improve their future. Wrapping around to my original point: it is not the ideology but the mind set that is important. --Ebralph 18:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Digression into the minutiae: Perhaps a distinction between ideology and mind-set needs to be made. nobs 18:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
By no means. Ideologoy is a thought out interpertation of events with an explaination for the future. A mind set is far more far reaching. Do people like more sugar in there food or not (and thereby cause a strain on the health care)? Do most people believe politicians are corrupt? Those are the important questions which decide about success or failure in the end. That is a heaven wide difference to ideology. You would probably consider most European Democracies borderline to a Communist Society. All subscribe to much the same ideology but the mind sets are different. That is why some democracies work and some don't. --Ebralph 19:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
So is ideology shaped by mind-set, or mind-set shaped by ideology? Or sometimes both or somtimes neither? nobs 20:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Good question, one I'll leave open as it isn't important for my point. Even if your question is only half serious. --Ebralph 21:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Student of rhetoric

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

We are leaving the issue Russia unresolved because you choose not to further follow that line. Indeed, Russia might be a great example to study the pros and cons of different ideologicly systems. On a economic scale, that is. I think we should make it clear that we are not discussing other issues.
We are not leaving the issue of Russia unresolved, we are leaving (as plainly stated) the two digressions unresolved. nobs 19:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "point you make is flawed as well: if people did not see the profit in monetary advantage, but in something different the thing would work"
  • Diagramed as such, reads: "point you make is flawed" [declarative judgement in the negative] supported by the following evidence: "if" [conditional], "but in something different" [another conditional basis] "would work" [suppositional premise].

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

Thanks for the analysis. I'll refomulate it in such a fashion so it may seem more concrete to you.
See for example The Suppositional Theory, Conditional Belief and Conditional Probability; first sentence reads,
"Let us put truth conditions aside for a while, and ask what it is to believe, or to be more or less certain..."
nobs 01:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
You assert that Communsim is in it's foundations against Nature. That is your assertion, albeit a bit compressed. Feel free to correct me on it. You follow that based on the concept that every idividuell is working for his own profit and that that lies in the nature of the human being which is why you say Communism is against Nature. I agree with you in so far, that it is a great issue Communism has failed to address and that that failure has lead to its downfall. Where I disagree with you is that human beings aren't more then selfish people looking to increase their own profit. I do not agree with you that that lies in the nature of people, it is a matter of mind set. You seemed to not see the difference between ideology and mind set and tried to make it more clear. It is a parameter of your argument. Which, if you turn around becomes conditional. If parameter not met, your argument would not work and therefore your argumentation, that it is against Nature is flawed. There - one condition, no suppositional premise. --Ebralph 16:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
With a judgement (See Declaratory judgment for its use & meaning in law; a declarative judgement in rhetoric is somehat different, the party using it presupposing (again, a suppositional premise) they have judicial authority to render such judgement, verdict, or opinion). nobs 19:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Fortunately were are not in the Soviet Union and therefore I have the authority to render such a judgement. --Ebralph 23:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] State v provincialism

Reverted & placed pending relative significance:

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

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

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

and makes the assertion

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

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

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

I agree with nobs on the fact that most mentioned Examples are in fact not Communist states in the sense that they were a) a Nationstate b) Communist state by the definition of the communists themselves. In fact the passage actually mentiones it itself. It might be an interesting sidefact if the last sentence is mentioned upfront and linking away to a main article. --Ebralph 16:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Article title: "Communist state"
Subhead: "Definition of Communist state"
Lead sentence in paragrash: "There have been and still exist countries where Communist parties have come to power through democratic elections..."
example used: "the Dutch Communist Party (CPN)
Close inspection finds the example is pure bullshit after three lead-ins purporting that the Dutch Communist Party had come to power over the state or country in a "democratic election", and had been a majority party from 1945 to 1989. This is pure deception. nobs 17:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, the rest was totally unintersting though. --Ebralph 18:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Womens rights in Communist countries

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

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

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

Let's examine the context; section reads,
"A "Communist State" is defined as a state ruled by a Communist Party. But here, the term Communism usually refers to the ultimate goal of the party to one day reach a phase in which everyone works according to their ability, and takes according to their needs of their own volition. The intermediate stage of Socialism is meant to create a 'new man' who voluntarily acts in the best interest of the community. In such a 'state', Marxist dictum theorizes no form of government is needed..."
No reference to (1) Russia (2) Eastern Europe (3) East Germany (4) Red Army. The context clearly is discussing Marxist Theory, and not any derived application. Therefore, the above postings is built upon a false premise. nobs 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Marxist Theory evidently didn't take into consideration things like rape, murder, or even the occassional drunken brawl, as explained here. nobs 00:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Tell me where Adam Smiths "The wealth of nations", Platos "The State" or Rousseaus "The social contract" discuss the issue of womens right? Why were socialist states very good at it? Marx wrote a philosophical theory, not a discussion of judical details. The discussion here is about the philosophical foundation. The insertion is inappropriate. --Ebralph 23:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Once again, Adam Smith does not propound a theory or ideology. Let's expand the issue of women's rights momentarily. Too often it is presented as affording younger women & girls opportunities young men & boys have. This is an extremly narrow view.
Let's take the case were a man & woman of the same age live together for 30 years and the woman has spent her life rearing children. At age 50, the man disposes of her & throws her out on the street. She has no work experience & limited marketable skills. The very idea of why man in process of civilization instituted Law and government applies here, not just in theory, but in application. A civilized and compassionate society would dictate that the man has an obligation to the woman, and to enforce the obligation. Did Marx, in all his brilliant writings, ever consider this question? Why the hell do governments exist? Just to feed the rich? Bullshit. nobs 00:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations" is not a theory, a ideology? That is truely a good one. Looking at Adam_Smith#Works the Author of the Wikipedia entry calls it a Manifesto.
The definition from your link: An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare Weltanschauung), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society . I would say Adam Smith fulfills this requirement very well.
Your critic is like looking at a map of a country and saying that the town X isn't represented well with all its streets. In fact Marx did not address the issue at all. I don't think he ever claimed completeness. I don't think the Founding Fathers talked about such issues in their writings for that matter. Does that mean they are support injustice towards women?
The other point is: first you dismiss my concrete examples when I bring some, then criticise that Marx doesn't address practical application. No, Marx did not have an answer to every question that comes from organizing a government. Yes, the adherents found a solution even so. Tell me where the other books addresses such issues. --Ebralph 11:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Extract from the wiki article: "The Wealth of Nations was influential since it did so much to create the field of economics and develop it into an autonomous systematic discipline. In the Western world, it is arguably the most influential book on the subject ever published."
Comment: "autonomous systematic discipline" can be interpreted to read "science"; "science", in the contemporaneous use of the term, not modern "science" in its perverted rational junk science use or meaning (the wiki authors' use of the term "Manifesto", I suspect is added for sheer dramatic poetry, and is detractive).
As to id; we derive idea and idiot from the etymology. Freud uses id, ego, & superego; but too much B.S. is derived from excess wordiness in an attempt to restate age old phenomenea in flowery poetic language and present it as "scholarship" or some new "idea" (understanding, interpretation, discovery, etc.). "There is no new thing under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 1:9; the words of wise King Solomon). nobs 17:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Nothing of which answers the question I have asked you: Tell me where Adam Smiths "The wealth of nations", Platos "The State" or Rousseaus "The social contract" discuss the issue of womens rights?
As to the other thing: if you think rationalism perverted be my guest. But by the very definition rationalism can't be "perverted". It only doesn't fit your idea of the world. --Ebralph 20:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, your train of thought has lost me. I stated
(A) Capitalism is not an ideology.
Which we don't agree on. Your argument for A) is that it isn't systematicly portraited in a closed fashion. Just because there is one authoritative person doesn't make it an ideology. And Etymology is no argument.
(B) Marxist ideology mislabelled Capitalism as an ideology.
If you do not accept A, B can not follow
(C) Marxist ideology has numerous flaws, including (i) the idea of no government necessary, and (ii) does not consider the issues of womens rights.
i) no comment - I don't want to start up another train of thought; ii) Is irrelevant in the context because that is a question which Marx never considered. There probably are Marxist authors which do discuss that issue.
(D) Adam Smith does not propound an ideology in Wealth of Nations.
I do not agree on that. Several stated arguments require a certain amount of acceptance. "School of thought" is fine with me as well, though.
How you surmise Adam Smith discusses Women's Rights in the Wealth of Nations from the above stated premises, I have no idea. Secondly, as to a discussion regarding Rousseau or Plato, I have no idea what your talking about, as you have introduced the two authors twice now, but have not developed any ideas on them, and I have made no comments on either.
That was the point when I mentioned Adam Smith. He writes a book about economics. Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Political_theory wrote a very influential work about political systems, almost as influential as Charles_de_Secondat,_Baron_de_Montesquieu for the formation of democracy in the US. These (and other like works) are the foundations of which Marx collectivly calls Capitalism. That is why I mentioned them in this connection - Other works on the same subject do not adress such issues either. Nobody criticises them about it.
Lastly, Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, a very different work than "Wealth of Nations", which is, as the title states, "a theory", observe this interesting extract,
"A system of natural philosophy may appear very plausible, and be for a long time very generally received in the world, and yet have no foundation in nature, nor any sort of resemblance to the truth. The vortices of Des Cartes were regarded by a very ingenious nation, for near a century together, as a most satisfactory account of the revolutions of the heavenly bodies. Yet it has been demonstrated, to the conviction of all mankind, that these pretended causes of those wonderful effects, not only do not actually exist, but are utterly impossible, and if they did exist, could produce no such effects as are ascribed to them. But it is otherwise with systems of moral philosophy, and an author who pretends to account for the origin of our moral sentiments, cannot deceive us so grossly, nor depart so very far from all resemblance to the truth." nobs 21:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
In science, no conclusion is ever final. --Ebralph 19:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
2 + 2 ≠ 4 nobs 20:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
The above being an example of the dreaded argumentum absurdum. nobs 21:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
2+2 can indeed be something else then 4, depending in which mathmatical space you are working. If I define my set as mod 3, then 2+2 = 1; --Ebralph 09:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps this link may be useful --> Toynbee's The Movement of Schism-and-Palingenesia. If you will permit me to be your spirit guide for a moment, some people find Toynbee difficult to read, so pay attention to the subtext where Toynbee quotes Mark xii. 25, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in Heaven", and you gain an appreciation of both Toynbees' meaning & his stinging sense of humor.
But read that first before MARXISM, SOCIALISM, AND CHRISTIANITY. nobs 22:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I thought we de-bloated the intro

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

The problem is that with the term 'Communist State' (capitalised or not) people will usually think that means there's Communism in such a country. And who can blame them. So just stating in the intro that it is a State ruled by a Communist Party is not enough, because people will not get the subtlety like you and I do (I hope... :) ). It needs more explaining. Whether all the different groups who disagree with the definition need to be named is a different matter. Maybe that could be moved to the next section Definition of a "Communist state". The intro could then be reduced to something simple like A Communist State is defined here as a State run by a Communist Party, which doesn't mean Communism is implemented in such a country. Or something similar, possibly a little more elaborate. DirkvdM 07:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
what has to be said in the intro para is that "Communist state" means a state in which a Communist party has a monopoly on power. obviously since they're calling themselves Communists they think they're following Marxism-Leninism correctly. whether other people do (Trotskyists, anarchists, other loon lefties etc.) is something that can be addressed elsewhere in the article Dr. Trey 10:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear, I put a smiley behind the 'hope' that you would get the subtleties, but now you make a serious faux pas. Communism can mean all sorts of things, but it is certainly not the same as Marxism-Leninism (which is the reason for the separate term...). Which is the whole point here. Also, the fact that a party calls itself Communist doesn't mean that it sees Marxism-Leninism as the right path to Communism. There are many definitions of Communism, but the ways people think they might get there are innumerable. DirkvdM 18:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
no need to "oh dear" me, i get the subtleties, but they're irrelevant. "communism" has generally referred to Marxist communism since The Communist Manifesto was written and moreso after Lenin and the Bolsheviks first attempted to put it into practice in Russia. no there aren't "many definitions" of communism, there are however disagreements over whether states like the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China are truly communist, yes. but throughout the 20th century, as we know, "communism" referred to Marxist-Leninist communism, as it was the only one being successfully attempted in various countries. Dr. Trey 01:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about the 'oh dear' :) . I suppose the central problem is we come from different backgrounds, so to say (with me being the odd one out I must admit). I've learned about communism through a university education and, worse still, a philosophy study. So I tend to focus on the original, generic meaning of things, whereas most people take things to mean what they mean in everyday life. And there have been hardly any examples of true communism in practise - the kibbutzim are probably the only sizeable example that comes fairly close. So when some states are ruled by a communist party it makes sense that people start seeing that as what communism is.
The most used definition of communism is 'do what you can, take no more than what you need'. There are more definitions (forgot them, though), but that doesn't matter. What matters is that Communist States don't practise communism (but state socialism or what ever it should be called). And that's not obvious, so it needs to be pointed out.
Equalling communism to Marxism is, though wrong, fairly acceptable. But equalling it to Leninism and the like is just plain wrong because that's a strategy to one day (hopefully - keep on dreaming) achieve a society in which communism would be possible by implementing a form of socialism as an intermediate state. Remember this is an encyclopedia. So just following public opinion won't do. It has to be 'scientific' and thus take a step back and explain ideologies where they apply. Where in the article that needs to be done is another matter. See my proposal above. DirkvdM 08:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Note, by the way, this phrase in the kibbutz article: "Marxists did not believe in nations". DirkvdM 08:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
dude you can pump all the communist philosophizing you want into the communism article, this is an article on Communist states, all of which have followed Marxism-Leninism in some form or another. no need for convoluted, unnecessary explanations in the intro. Dr. Trey 06:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
So we agree. At least to some extent. The intro is not the right place for it, except for a short mention (the fact that Communist States have little to do with Communism is not quite obvious, so there should be some mention of that). How much should go into the next section and how much should be reserved for the Communism article is a fine point. I moved the detailed stuff down. The next step of pruning some of that to the Communism article would require more time than I have now. DirkvdM 09:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts by CJK

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

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

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

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

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

as any objective person does. Dr. Trey 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Added after edit conflict with Squiddy below:
I don't see why there should be an equal distribution between pros and cons. What matters is what is true and relevant. So the specific issues count. And even after my additions, there is certainly not a '2/3 majority' in the defence of communist states. It's roughly equal.
Dividing the arguments in two sections seems to make sense, but when there is a counterargument to one argument that original argument would then have to be rehashed in the other section, which would be a bit awkward. Anyway, there is no such split at all, which rather invalidates your argument. Arguments already go back and forth. Except that that is split in separate paragraphs. May that be what you mean? If so, why not change it thus in stead of bluntly removing arguments (you don't like...?). But even that was not the case before (as in the education bit), so why did you leave that alone then?
About the education bit. I don't know how much emphasis was placed on the communist model. But I do know that in the West there is an extremely strong emphasis on the capitalist model. I've studied management and have thus had loads of economy classes. Apart from a short overview of various forms of communism, everything was focused on how a capitalist society works. Which makes perfect sense if the classes are given in a capitalist country. We need to learn to work in the society we live in. And the same of course applies to a 'communist' society (well, socialist, really, but let's not start about that here). So maybe that should be made a bit clearer, the way I put it here. Or completely remove the education bit. And then there's the use of the word 'compulsory'. That is added in such a way that it sound negative. But education in, say, the Netherlands is also compulsory, which is a good thing. So why mention it in the 'contra-section' in stead of the 'pro-section'?
And then there are several other reverts. Could you comment on those as well, please?DirkvdM 12:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


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

[5]

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

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

I don't like 'However, most poor capitalist countries have not managed to escape poverty either, so one may argue there is no statistical indication for a correlation between economic growth and the choice between capitalism and socialism.' How about 'There are, however, very poor capitalist countries, and high growth is possible in communist states, for example the annual growth China since the late 1980s is historically unprecedented (averaging over 9% pa)[6]'

how 'bout we say "However, Communist China has experienced high growth since the late 1980s, after Deng Xiaoping enacted market reforms that de-collectivized farming and loosened the state's overall control over the economy. Other Communist states such as Vietnam have shown similar GDP growth after market reforms as well."
and as we know high GDP growth is very possible in poor capitalist countries. how many times have i heard "well GDP isn't everything" when people're talking about Chile and Latin America in general.
if you're gonna talk about Communist growth (rather than growth in those states who've abandoned certain essential elements of Marxism) the best example would be the Stalinist USSR.

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

what're you talking about? saluting the flag is a little different from being taught about the glories and perfection of Lenin and the Revolution in your history class. and i seem to remember being constantly reminded about what we did to the Indians in history class. so no, it's not the same.
and unless the snack food company is brainwashing kids about how great its brands are and how you should only buy them that's a little of a ridiculous comment.

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

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

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

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

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

The bit about the various regional communist rules seems a bit out of place since they're regional, but the point of it is to illustrate the final point that a communist state is one in which the party holds a monopoly on political power. Since there are no such examples on a national level, these will have to do.
About the majority of poor capitalist countries. Given that there are dozens of those (at least half the countries in the world) on would sooner have to conclude the deficiency of capitalism. But for something so complex as socio-economics (ceterus is rarely paribus here) one would need a very wide statistical basis, somewhere in the vicinity of hundreds or rather thousands. Which we don't have - there simply aren't enough countries. In the case of communist states it's even worse - there's a mere handful, so no conclusions at all can be drawn. Scientifically speaking, that is, and we'd like to be scientific, don't we? :) But even worse, all these came about after revolutions, which is a very destructive process that makes any comparison invalid, unless one compares with other revolutionary dictatorships/oligarchies which are capitalist. Have any of those been successful? (This is not meant as a rhetorical question.) Here again I have left the text as it is and reacted to it (in stead of removing it, as seems to be CJK's preference - when it suits him, that is) because it's the sort of thing people may think, so it should be addressed.
We can draw plenty of conclusions about Communist states. There's not that much anymore but many countries have been Communist at one point or another and have experienced similar problems. Dr. Trey 23:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Having two opposing weasel worded POVs together does not make NPOV. I full heartedly agree. One may argue that many of my edits are counter-pov's, but like I said that's largely because I simply don't like to mute others and prefer to react ('add rather than substract' is, I believe, a Wikipedia policy).
Also, communists may argue.... That's CJK's wording, not mine. I wrote one may argue.... About the argument, do I understand that you mean the two sides can be argued but that it should be done differently (eg quoting Adam Smith)?
That the article is about communist states, not communism is by no means obvious considering phrases like communists argue in stead of supporters of communist states argue. There is a whole lot of confusion about the distinction between communism and communist states (which are arguably mutually exclusive). More importantly, most people think that communist states are communist (and who can blame them considering the terminology). So, even though that is already explained earlier in the article, it deserves t be pointed out once again here. DirkvdM 13:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
we should stick to the facts and avoid "so and so argues" as much as possible. Dr. Trey 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
But a big problem there is which facts are relevant. And if the relevancy is debated and the fact is still mentioned then the dispute should be mentioned too, and that is easily formulated as 'one might argue' or such. DirkvdM 08:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
That was really the point I was making with the Adam Smith quote - I don't think that quote should go in the article, and it wouldn't need to if the POVs about 'USSR like slavery' and 'ah, but 19th C capitalist countries also like slavery' were removed. The stuff about not employing dissidents, internal passports etc is fine and factual, but I think we should just dump the rest of that para. WP's 'expand rather than delete' preference doesnt really apply to chunks of POV-OR. Squiddy 11:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do I even need to say anything here?

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

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

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

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

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

Unnecessary warning.

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

Removing the entire section would be an exaggeration, but it would make sense to remove some stuff that I reacted to. Like I said, I like to keep both sides,especially when it's about something people might think. But I'm now beginning to feel that's not such a strong argument.
The examples of 'performance' of communist parties (as you called it) is relevant for two reasons. First, like I said, they serve to illustrate the point in the last sentence, that the term 'communist state' requires a monopoly on political power. Secondly, since a communist state is here defined as ruled by a communist party, so the performance of communist parties is relevant. On whichever government level. A nation is not the central concept (that was not the case until a few hundred years ago and is starting to disappear again slowly). Suppose the EU became more of a unity and one state would get a communist government, could that then not be mentioned here? Indian states are large enough to be separate countries. They just happen to be part of a bigger country. The region in the Netherlands is pretty small and the amount of text on it is indeed a bit much. But it all serve fine points, like that a communist mayor can also be appointed by the crown. As an illustration that deserves its place, I'd say. The point is to illustrate how communist parties can gain power, but still not lead to a communist state. Still, this might indeed be shortened.
Your 2/3 argument was just about that paragraph? I though you meant the section as a whole. And anyway, like I said, why should it be evenly balanced? The value of the arguments should matter, whichever way the conclusion seems to turn. And how was my addition pro-communist? Firstly, that should read pro-communist state. A fine but important point that keeps on being missed - which is why I pointed it out (one of your removals).
About the education bit your comment is that you don't have one? Education is inherently indoctrination, I don't think you'd contest that. Anyway, I've already commented on this above.
The cars in China bit does indeed look a bit lame. But it's a reaction (again) to the suggestion that the rule of communist parties is responsible for pollution. Capitalism, however, can just as well lead to pollution. More so even, if you take the US as an extreme example. So once again, an argument is used that works the other way around just as well, and in this case even better. So this is one paragraph that should be completely removed.
The point about slavery is really that the exploitation of workers basically started later in the USSR.
Trey, GDP is indeed 'not everything', as you put it. Actually, it's a pretty vague indicator. See GDP#Controversies for some considerations.
By the way, about the format of this discussion. CJK, indentation is basically meant to distinguish between editors, so if you use indentations in your comment that's a bit confusing. And Trey, it seems better if you add your comments at the bottom in stead of in the middle of someone else's comment. I used to do that too, but contrary to what I thought it makes for harder reading. If yo ureact to something that's a bit back in the thread just make a reference to what you're commenting on. DirkvdM 09:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
My problem with both (CJK & DvdM) your approaches is that you both clearly have a strongly held view on the subject. Adding arguments that you make up yourself and trying to agree how much 'balance' there should be is a recipe for revert warring. If it is, for example, a valid criticism comparing the Soviet system to slavery, then you will easily be able to find some reputable economist or historian saying so in print(WP:CITE). If not, it is your original research, and no matter how good a criticism it is, it shouldn't go in here (WP:NOR, WP:NOT a soapbox). The same goes for all the criticism and advocacy which is not cited from a reputable work. It should all go. This article is always likely to be contentious, but it will never stabilise at a decent quality if people try to nudge the POV back and forth between pro- and anti-communist positions. Citing published works is probably the only way to minimise this. --Squiddy 10:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
So you suggest removing the entire section and possibly starting anew insofar as sources can be found? Like I said, that's a bit drastic, but you have a point. Then again so much will be written about this that a source can be found for just about anything. Another problem is that verifiable sources will be in English. And most of those will be from the US, which will automatically lead to a bias. Or would you trust others (say, me) to translate texts in another language? Anyway, I can't read Russian or Chinese and I wont be the only one :) . But I suppose that can't be helped. I suppose this is one of those arguments that, even though valid, cannot be accepted. DirkvdM 10:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't really want to remove the criticism and advocacy section, because it contains a lot of factual stuff which isn't disputed by anyone, eg severe repression and gulags, good Cuban literacy rate, Soviet dissidents being put in mental hospitals, advanced USSR space program, etc. The problem arises when people use 'critics say' and 'it could be argued' to insert their own arguments about why things may have been justifiable, whether the soviet system resembles slavery, whether capitalism is just as bad, etc. The title of the section does invite people to do this, so perhaps renaming the section to 'achievements and failures of communist states' would help? I think it would be better to stick to hard facts (if we can agree on what they are) as much as possible.
About sources in other languages, there are guidelines here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English. --Squiddy 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Sticking to the facts sounds good in theory, but a problem is that there are two criteria; correctness and relevance/interpretation. Education is indoctrination, so that goes for education in these countries too, but of course stating that is misleading. And it is compulsory, but that goes for other countries as well and is a good thing, but it is presented here as something negative. The first paragraph is a nice example. The same thing is apparently said to support opposing views. Who do you compare? Communist states and industrialised western countries? Sounds reasonable if all countries in question are industrialised. But if you consider that the western ones industrialised much earlier a comparison between communist states at the moment of revolution and other equally poor countries at that moment (who also had a revolution then?) would be more correct and then you see that the capitalist ones have done much worse. And like I said, any comparisons are extremely tentative because there are just too few examples for a statistical basis. So if you start from 'little facts' (or what should I call that?) you can mix them up to create any view you like. So the sources would have to be more 'integral' (I'm struggling to find the right words here), but then you run into the problem of copyright. An article can't be a collection of citations. So there will have to be some interpretation. Not that I wish to put a damper on your enthusiasm, but I thought I should point this out. DirkvdM 09:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
So there will have to be some interpretation. Of course. But there's no need for Wikipedia editors to reinvent the wheel here, as there is an established literature in Western political science on just about all the points that you and some of the other editors have been bringing up. For example, your point on comparing between Communist regimes at the moment of revolution and other equally poor countries at that moment has been examined in the development studies scholarship on the notion of "late industrialization." In recent years political scientists, following Arend Lijphart, started to adopt rigorous case study and statistical methods, just as psychologists a bit earlier, in order to mitigate the effect of a researcher picking comparisions in order to get some sort of desired result. Since there is enough research on the subject, by citing the relevant academic literature, we can transcend the "criticism and advocacy" stuff in this article, which, as Squiddy pointed out, has long strayed into the original research realm. 172 09:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Let me rephrase myself a bit clearer. I meant to point out the difference between data and information. Data are snippets of facts. Information is making links between those snippets to create insight. But when you can combine the data in different ways to create opposing insights there is little difference between information and opinion. As Wikipedia ecitors we are faced with two problems. On the one hand we can't make an article full of quotes (of information/opinion) because that would violate copyright. So we have to interpret and then we're faced with the problem of original research. This is a fine line we have to walk. 'No POV' and 'no OR' sounds good in theory but isn't practical. At least as a strict rule. It's still a good guideline, something to keep in the back of your head. DirkvdM 10:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I probably should have added earlier that the root of all the problems with this entry is the fact that it has been straying way off topic for years. The topic of an article on "Communist state" is much more specialized than many users seem to realize. "Communist state" is a political science term used to refer to a regime in which state and party are embedded in each other. It is a formal state definition, in the same sense that the termconstitutional monarchy is another formal state definition. Sadly, this article was in much better shape (in the sense that the content was appropriate to the title) when it was a stub two and a half years ago. [7] Unfortunately, back in the days of Wikipedia's ancient past, some editors did not understand what kind of content was germane to an article on a formal state definition and started to upload anticommunist commentaries on Soviet and PRC history, similar to the ones now described in their proper place at criticisms of communism. I'm tempted to follow Wikipedia:Be bold and remove the "criticism and advocacy" section at long last, given that the topic of the Communist state article is much more specialized than a general discussion of Communist ideology, Communist regimes, or Communist parties. 172 08:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm persuaded by this argument. I made a started trimming a version of the article User:Squiddy/Communist_state but I realised that just removing the apologetics leaves a pretty poor article. The random juxtaposition of bits about cuba, china, GDR, whatever reads very badly, and it is worst in the criticism and advocacy section.
With the idea of getting back to an article the political science term, the Historical Examples section could be radically cut, and the lists of current and defunct states could be broken out into separate articles. I suspect that any mention of the real historical communist states in a pol sci article will provide seeds from which new clumps of POV and OR will sprout. --Squiddy 10:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent point. I agree with the above enthusiastically, along with your 10:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC) post. As you point out, the problem is not just the "criticism and advocacy" section but much of the rest of the article. This article needs a thorough overall just to flesh out the relevant content at hand. A new introduction can be written circumscribing the topic more clearly, and directing readers to the relevant related entries on the histories of individual Communist regimes and criticisms of communism. 172 10:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Note, by the way, that there is already the Criticisms of communism article, which is linked to at the top of the 'Criticism and advocacy' section. That article also makes the distinction between communism and communist states, resulting in a split in the article. Maybe that should be two separate articles (they're rather different subjects and the article is rather long), with this article linking to the appropriate one. That split would also solve the problem that the title now only covers one half of the subject. DirkvdM 10:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
There really isn't a need to split the article "criticisms of communism." When one is criticizing in broad brush "Communist states," or actually Communist regimes to use the more precise technical term, the ideology and political movement called "communism" is clearly the target of the criticism. In other words, the article "criticisms of communism" is supposed to make clear that when it refers to criticisms of Communist regimes, it is referring to authors who have made an argument linking their criticisms of the actions of Communist regimes to the ideology called "communism" itself. If that distinction is not clear at the momemnt in the criticisms of communism article, I suspect that the lack of clarity has to do with the ongoing edit war there. (An edit warrior currently in arbitration keeps on reverting back to his advocacy version. The NPOV editors have given up on trying to reach a compromise with him.) 172 02:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] about communist entities that aren't states

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

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

[edit] Why are criticisms duplicated?

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

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

[edit] Communist party performance in democratic elections

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

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

We already have a section defining it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me too. Excellent work by Squiddy once again! 172 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added it to the end of the def section as CJK suggested. --Squiddy 11:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nicaragua

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

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

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

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

[edit] Inconsistencies in definition of Communist State

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Title

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

[edit] Usage of the term

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Guyana and Burma

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

Guyana is a little more complex than most of those on this list, but Burma is a pretty clear-cut example - why not add it to the list? Warofdreams talk 20:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No, Burma cannot be added. The definition cannot be reduced to totalitarianism with socialist rhetoric. In Burma there was no communist party leading the state, it was a military junta that constructed an artificial party for propaganda purposes. --Soman 08:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added a note in the article about this, but it's difficult to produce a definition of a communist state which includes the nations listed and not Burma - how do we decide if the party has real power? Warofdreams talk 09:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Politics is not always very exact. However, I think Somalia illustrates the point quite well. The regime of Siad Barre was adviced by their Soviet donors to construct a political party, in a step towards institutionalization. However, it was never a marxist-leninist party per se, it just imitated some structural features and rhetoric of the communist parties. One could well argue that the communist parties of Eastern Europe had little real manouvering space for carrying politics independently from the USSR, but at least they were real functioning m-l parties before the communist takeover. --Soman 09:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totalitarian?

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

NPOV does not require a non-partisan source. Just verifiable publication in a reliable source. Fred Bauder 03:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The Republic of China is an authoritarian state. It is not a Communist state. Neither is Hungary. A quick source tells me [8] "All communist countries are cursed with the legacy of totalitarianism, which aggressively sought to eradicate anything that might serve as an institutional foundation for democracy, including civil society and the rule of law." Intangible 05:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
"In the postcommunist countries, the totalitarian past is surely dead" from your source, is referring to extreme suppression which involved entire populations. To refer to the People's Republic of China as merely "authoritarian" is inappropriate. The Roman Catholic Church is authoritarian. They don't execute or imprison those who engage in democratic actions. Red China does. Fred Bauder 11:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
A good example of the state of flux in China Fred Bauder 12:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You can also say that China's one-child policy is due to other countries not letting Chinese immigrants in. Further, I believe that couples that are "one-child children" do not themselves fall under the one-child policy, but this might vary per region. Intangible 17:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Lots of issues, but the point is that in many instances totalitarian practices are contested by attempts to conduct business in a lawful way. Fred Bauder 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
If you insist on making a broad, definitive, factual statement that all communist states are totalitarian, you need a non-partisan, reputable source.
The Encyclopædia Britannica states that totalitarianism is a "Form of government that subordinates all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state, with a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority." [9] Certainly then, the government of the People's Republic of China cannot be considered totalitarian, as it does not subordinate all aspects of its citizens' lives to the authority of the state (as evidenced by the economic freedom enjoyed by the middle class), nor does it (anymore) have a single charismatic leader as the ultimate authority. Rather, there exists a clique of powerful bureaucrats, none with a particularly charismatic reputation.
And while you say that the PRC is not a Communist state (which is true in practice), the original definition of the article, which is derived from the listed references, refutes that claim, as does the main body of the article, which specifically names the PRC as a Communist state. The PRC is governed by a Communist Party which officially declares allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism; it is therefore a communist state. If you have references that dispute this definition, you must still respect the findings of the references already used in the article, which are just as valid.
Moreover, you said, Fred, that "To refer to the People's Republic of China as merely "authoritarian" is inappropriate." While I agree that the term "authoritarian", on its own, does not fully describe the extent of the CPC's rule, the term "totalitarian" is evidently too extreme to apply to the present-day PRC (or even to Laos or Cuba). By stating that "a Communist Party holds a monopoly on power", the lead appropriately describes the extent of authoritarianism in Communist states.\
--WGee 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well might I note, that of the current countries with a single communist party, only those that nave not embraced market reforms are still totalitarian (using the Encyclopædia Britannica definition). Ie. North Korea and Turkmenistan vs. China and Vietnam. This nuance should be mentioned I think in the introduction. Intangible 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Most Communist states historically were, or continue to be, totalitarian with a rigid plan economy; embracing market reforms isn't necessarily coupled with as much socio-political liberalisation, they may remain authoritarian. The clauses after the semicolon don't make sense and are improperly connected. They also need to be sourced. Secondly, your edit moved a whole paragraph of relevant and lead-worthy information about the differences between socialism and communism. -- WGee 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should check the edit history of this article for once??? Intangible 20:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HK&Macau

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

[edit] "market reforms"

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

[edit] Sattelite state / client state

It seems to me as a classic POV to refer to those in the soviet sphere of influence as "sattelite state" (negative connotations) and to those in the american sphere of influence as "client state" (neutral connotations). Other Opinions ?-- ExpImptalk con 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moldova

In Moldova, President Voronin is a member of a Communist Party. However, the country is not classified as Communist even though is ruled by a communist. Communist countries are all one-party states while Moldova is not so could Moldova be a sole example of a Communist but democratic state?Abc85 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I have finally posted a long-needed rewrite of the article. The old article was an off-topic mess. The term "communist state" refers to a political science definition of a government type, not a history of communist regimes. I discussed the need for a rewrite with Squiddy last December. If there are any questions about my edit, please refer to the relevant dicussion and the explanation I offered earlier:

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

172 | Talk 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the rewrite. Does anyone have a good reason to revert? -- TheMightyQuill 03:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a rewrite is necessary, though I believe the article should also incorporate a brief history of Communist states (for the simple reason that any article on X form of government should tell the reader how that form of government developed through time). -- Nikodemos 04:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The focus of the article is a bit more specialized. This article deals exclusively with a system of government, as opposed to being more braodly focused on politics-- just as the article on federalism is on a system of government, not on the politics within a particular federal system, and just as monarchy is about a system, not a discussion on the politics of monarchies. A system of government refers to the formal structures and how they work. The main point to be addressed in an article on communist state involves the concept of government under Communism, in which party and state constitutional structures are embedded in each other. Details on the histories, and general characteristics of, politics within particular communist states belong in other entries. 172 | Talk 04:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it would be an amazing feat to talk about the political structure of a Communist state while omitting any mention of the way this structure developed in the Soviet Union. Surely any political science article must be placed under some sort of historical context (e.g. the monarchy article should mention the rise and fall of traditional European monarchies, as well as contain brief histories of monarchy on other continents). -- Nikodemos 04:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The subject of a system of government (e.g., monarchy, constitutional monarchy, republic, confederation, federal republic, etc.) refers to something more specific than the term "political structure." It refers to the formal constitutional structures of government. I agree the article should be expanded. However, we should all be careful, as it is easy to go off topic here. 172 | Talk 05:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No reason for this massive deletion of interesting info. If something is missing, add it to the old material.Ultramarine 10:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the correct article for the Marxist theory vision would be the Dictatorship of the proletariat article. "Communist state" is the common term for the states claiming to be Marxist-Leninst.Ultramarine 11:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe 172 intends this to be an article about the real historical aspects of Communist states, rather than Marxist theory. I was also under the impression that he hasn't finished his rewrite yet, which is why his version is a little on the short side. -- Nikodemos 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, did you even read the rewrite, or did you just glance at the headings? The "Marxist usage of the term section" is not a "Marxist theory vision" section-- quite the opposite. The section just clarifies that the term does not refer to the "dictatorship fo the proletariat," i.e. that Marxists do not use the term to refer to governemnt under Communism. Also, if you do not understand the reasons for the rewrite, see the December 2005 discussion I had with Squiddy, which established a consensus for a rewrite, although no one at the time was ready to devote the time to doing so. 172 | Talk 21:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
No reason has been given for the massive deletions. Again, if something is missing or incorrect, correct or add. Do not delete, in particular the critical views.Ultramarine 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
No, reasons have been offered. How can we assume that you are editing in good faith when you insist that "no reason has been given" despite (1) the fact that you were already personally directed to the relevant discussion in which reasons for the rewrite are presented [10] and (2) despite the fact that the very first comment posted under this heading refers anyone interested to the relevant discussion offering reasons for the rewrite? [11] Reasons have been offered, and you definately should have seen them by now. If you are uninterested in responding to them, stop interfering in good-faith efforts to make this article readable, usable, accurate, and on-topic. 172 | Talk 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Another commendable rewrite by 172! The old article was a patchwork of original research and superfluous, if not irrelevant, historical details. It was verbose, lacked structure and focus, and had a ridiculously winded and sloppy "Criticism and advocacy" section, which was nothing more than a soapbox for anti-communist trolls. The article looked like it was heavily influenced by mainstream news reports or, worse, Lou Dobbs Tonight. Finally this article proposes a credible, concise definition of a frequently misconstrued term. -- WGee 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! As an aiside, the credit goes mostly to Jtdirl, whose original text from way back to 2003 I mostly borrowed for the rewrite. 172 | Talk 07:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for ignoring NPOV by excluding critical views. I will continue to add them back.Ultramarine 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're outvoted 4:1 on this one Ultramarine. I understand your concern, but this isn't the right place for those arguments. It's a different issue. -- TheMightyQuill 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, qut dodging the issues on hand here. Respond to the explanations you were given earlier, or stop reverting. 172 | Talk 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Pleae explain exactly why NPOV should be ignoted. I can see no explanation.Ultramarine 17:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the term "Communist state" is used when referring to the Communist states, and not only as an abatract concept.Ultramarine 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
We can of course create a separate article for this important subject: How about the Criticisms of the Communist states and link to it from this article? Ultramarine 17:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, if you remember, half of the article criticisms of communism is already dedicated to criticisms of Communist states. The criticism section in this article was in fact composed of paragraphs copied almost verbatim from criticisms of communism. -- Nikodemos 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Ultramarine, at least partially. Current version [12] is much more informative. -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, please read the reply I'm making here to your three comments above in good faith. (1) First, your comment "Pleae explain exactly why NPOV should be ignoted [ignored?]" is cute. Nevertheless, since we are supposed to be writing a serious encyclopedia, let's keep our discussions serious on the talk pages. No one has proposed ignoring NPOV. Of course you are not going to see an 'explanation for ignoring NPOV.' Try to engage with your other editors without committing the loaded questions fallacy. (2) Re: Obviously the term "Communist state" is used when referring to the Communist states, and not only as an abatract concept. Of course, the term "Communist state," like many other technical terms with specific meanings, is used much less restrictively, but this usage is more informal. The term "state," for example, is often used in casual usage by non-specialists as if it were synonymous to terms such as "country," "nation," and "regime," and "government." Americans often use the term as if it were synonymous to the concept of political subunits within a federal system. Nevertheless, in the more strict usage of technical terms required in encyclopedias (especially in articles about the technical terms themselves), these terms have specific and distinct meanings. (3) Re: We can of course create a separate article for this important subject: How about the Criticisms of the Communist states and link to it from this article? The goal that underlies your proposal to create a separate article is good. You are interested in uploading criticisms of Communist party rule in 20th century Eastern Europe and East Asia, which is useful. However, you are putting them in the wrong place when framing your discussions in terms of communist states. Much of the material you're reverting back to here belongs in an article about criticisms of communist regimes. When used by specialists, the technical terms 'communist state' and 'communist regime' have specific, and distinct meanings. A "communist regime" refers more broadly to the set of political structures under which political institutions are ruled or dominated by a Communist party. This term encompasses the broad range of material to which you keep reverting back here at communist state. Much more specifically, a "communist state" refers to a definition of a particular idea of government that has been espoused by ruling Communist parties formulated by Western political scientists... If you want to write a criticisms of communist regimes, go ahead, so long as you get it right. Such an article could be thought of a sub-article of criticism of communism (which could be split up by category of the subject being criticized-- communist regimes, communist theory and ideology, communist parties and tactics, communist leaders, communist influence on art and humanities, etc.). 172 | Talk 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Lots of unourced claims here. But I like your idea of an article called Criticisms of Communist regimes. Regardless, we should certainly link to it prominently from this article, since Communist state is the term in common use. Do you find this acceptable? Ultramarine 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of creating an article about Communist regimes. Lot of deleted material could be put there. -- Vision Thing -- 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, respond to the arguments above, or stop reverting. If you dispute any of the particular points I made above, I am willing and ready to support them by pointing you to external sources. The version of the article you keep reverting to is a totally off-topic mess for reasons I described above and must be replaced by something at least usable. My rewrite is way too brief, but at least it is a legitimate encyclopedic article discussing the subject at hand, unlike your reversion. Regarding your comment "we should certainly link [criticisms of communist regimes] ... prominently from this article," there is already a tag on a rewrite stating, For information regarding communism as a form of society, as an ideology advocating that form of society, or as a popular movement, see the main Communism article. We could also add criticisms of communism to that tag, along with "criticisms of communist regimes," if such an article is written and encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This seems acceptable to me. I would like to hear what Nikodemos think.Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Please give me one day to attempt to write a new version of the Communist state article that integrates information about political science, history, and criticisms. -- Nikodemos 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If you do that, I suggest working within the framework of the rewrite and expanding the article from that basis. If you were to use the old article, it would turn into yet another unfocused discussion of the histories of communism in 20th century Eastern Europe and modern China. First, here are my suggestions for expanding the historical context. In order to offer useful historical context on communist state (a Western political science definition of the formal system of government-- executive, legislative and judicial-- under communism), trace the development of the constitutional configurations of the nominal governing body of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government was founded by the Congress of Soviets in Petrograd in late 1917, which designated the Council of People's Commissars as the legislative body of the Russian SFSR and the Central Executive Committee as the executive body of the government. The government of the RSFSR and later the USSR offically proclaimed itself the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Now, here are my suggestions for expanding the historical context. With an understanding of the definition of the subject at hand, offering context on criticisms of communist states is easy. The criticism simply boils down to the following: the Soviet government and later other Soviet-style governments claimed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat, but in reality they were were not. There are two important angles of criticism. First, Marxist critics argue the communist state founded in Russia noted councils elected by workers did not control the government-- the basis of the claim of being the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead, they noted, the soviets quickly lost their power to the party and its politburo. Second, liberal critics fundamentally reject the idea of a system of government (executive, legislative and judicial) in which government is not formally independent of a political party. I trust we all understand liberal democracy enough to understand the importance of this separation, so I probably don't have to elaborate here. Finally, the article could clarify that the use of the term "communist state" by Western specialists is itself a criticism. As I'm sure we're all aware, he RFSR and later the USSR proclaimed itself a "socialist state" (the term "state" in Soviet parlence being distinguished from government to include not only the legislature, executive, and judical bodies but the government and all other political institutions by which the ruling class maintains the conditions of its rule), never a "communist state" by its own nominal standards. In short, although it's really easy to go off topic here, if you stay focused on subjects like Soviet constitutions, theories of government under Communism, and criticisms of those theories, and you'll probably be okay as you work on expanding the rewrite. 172 | Talk 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice; I'm sorry I couldn't follow it more closely. As I started writing, I realized that if I were to do a rewrite based on your suggestions, I would have to begin with a lot of research and it would take me far longer than one night. You may find my current rewrite unsatisfactory, but it was the best I could do in a few hours (and I'll be too busy in the next few days to work on it any more). I urge you to keep this article as it stands now, and to follow my suggestion of splitting the political science from the history within one article, rather than encouraging the proliferation of POV forks. Besides, think about it realistically: Unless you plan to police this article for the rest of your life, some new editors will inevitably start adding history and criticisms to it at some point in the near future. -- Nikodemos 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The rewrite is unsatisfactory. The issue here is not the history. It's not forks. If we are going to work on this article, we might as well get it right if we are going to put the time in it. There is no need to make things harder than they are. This is a simple article on a Western political science term to describe communism as a form of government-- the formal constitutional structures and how they work. Discussions of things like the current ruling coalition in Moldova or Cuban health care are totally off-topic. 172 | Talk 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly dislike this proposed fragmentation of information. We already have articles on Criticisms of communism and Criticisms of Marxism, and they considerably overlap. The proposed Criticisms of Communist regimes article would overlap with them even more.

The whole idea of having separate articles for the structure of Communist states and for the history of such states also seems unusual to me (not to mention the fact that "regime" is a pejorative term). I will attempt to forge a compromise by merging the two current versions of the Communist state article. -- Nikodemos 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They would probably overlap in practice-- not because they refer to exactly the same things but because because Wikipedia editors often don't know they're doing. In practice, it would likely result in something pretty bad. Nevertheless, my point is not so much to propose writing a "criticisms of communist regimes" article as to use it as an example to help the users restoring that awful, incoherent mess that in the old communist state article understand that the reason that they keep going way off topic here is because they don't understand that the formal state definition of the subject at hand here does not simply refer to general characteristics and discourses on communist rule or regimes. By the way, regime is NOT is a pejorative term. It is a technical term with a value-neutral and specific meaning. 172 | Talk 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I somewhat agree with 172 here, see above.Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If we know that pursuing a certain course of action would lead to a bad article in practice, then we should not pursue it. I agree that the old Communist state article was a mess - but I argue that we should try integrating the useful information from both versions rather than either reverting back and forth or creating forks. Note that there are no separate articles for democracy and democratic regime, or autocracy and autocratic regime. The political science definition of a form of government and the history of that form of government in practice are handled in the same article. -- Nikodemos 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason we don't have those articles is that ideas like "democracy," "authoritarianism," and "totalitarianism" are already regime typologies (the aforementioned being the standard tripartite distinction of regimes that dominated American political science during the Cold War era). The communist state article, however, attempts to offer a definition of a particular system of government, just as the terms constitutional monarchy, republic, federal republic, and confederation are used as other formal state definitions. Jtdirl made this same point over and over again on this very same talk page. I'm just reiterating here what he already said a while ago: OH boy. How many times and how many people have to explain it. A system of government deals with two issues: the constitutional structures and how they work. In this case, it involves the concept of government as held within communism and the manner in which in a Cs of government, unlike in liberal democracies party and constitutional structures are embedded in each other. The general characteristics of a political system belong in an article on the political system or on history, not here. Jeez. How come you have such difficulty grasping a fundamental characteristics of this article, when no-one else can? Your information if well written belongs in an article. But simply not this one because it is as irrelevant here as discussing George W. Bush's linguistic dexterity in an article on Federal Republics, or a piece on Prince Charles's sex life in an article on the constitutional concept of constitutional monarchy. ... ÉÍREman 14:30 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC) 172 | Talk 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, could you explain why the article does not comply with WP:NPOV? The Criticism and adovocacy section belongs in an article about Communist regimes, because it criticizes the policies of Communist parties rather than "the formal system of government—executive, legislative and judicial—under communism". I would thus be confused if you are disputing the article's neutrality because of the removal of that section. -- WGee 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In common use, Communist states refer to the states claiming to be Marxist-Leninist. No evidence has been presented otherwise. Thus, criticisms of them should be mentioned or there should be a link to an article about this. I am waiting for Nikodemos rewrite to see if this fixes the probelm, otherwise I will restore the criticisms or create a new article and link to it from this article.Ultramarine 00:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No evidence has been presented that Communist regime is the correct term. On the contrary, a quick Google search finds the term Communist state to be used in scholarly article, like this one: [13]Ultramarine 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
In Google Scholar Communist states and Communist regimes are used in about equal number of scholarly works.Ultramarine 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what 172 has been trying to explain, or maybe you haven't bothered to read his explanations. "Communist state" is a legitimate term in political science; likewise, it is used by many political scientists, as your Google search has demonstrated. The problem is that "communist state" does not mean what you think it means: it does not refer to the policies of Communist parties, which is what you are trying to criticize. I don't think you have access to the scholarly articles you cited, but, if you did, you would probably discover that the authors are using "communist state" in the sense described by 172, the correct sense. -- WGee 00:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No evidence has been given for this. Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions. The article above is from a Political Science journal and use "Communist state" to refer Hungary and China, not to an abstract concept.Ultramarine 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I understand that you are upset that the criticism of Communist regimes has been removed from this article or "supressed", but nobody is stopping you from creating a Communist regime article and inserting the criticism there; in fact, 172 has recommended it, provided the article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. -- WGee 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, I still don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm pretty disappointed, since earlier I started getting the impression that you were getting it, as I read your comments This seems acceptable to me. I would like to hear what Nikodemos think. Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) and I think I somewhat agree with 172 here, see above.Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I did not say that "communist regime" was the "correct term" and "communist state" was the "incorrect term." I am merely pointing to the basic definitions of the terms governement, regime, and state. Based on these elementary political science terms (terms have meanings independent of Google searches), a the goverment under communism refers to something much more specific (e.g., a facade of an insitution like the Council of People's Commissars) than the broader regime or political system. 172 | Talk 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, no evidence has been given for this. Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions. I have cited sources, you have not. But why not wait for Nikodemos rewrite and see how it turns out? Ultramarine 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, as I said earlier respond to my comments or stop revering. If you dispute any of the particular points I made above, I am willing and ready to support them by pointing you to external sources. Saying that I have not "cited sources" does not negate what I have been saying on this talk page. We are not required to cite sources on the talk pages. I know definitions of basic concepts in the social sciences off the top of my head. I don't need to refer to sourcebooks and textbooks when I work. But if the veracity of any of the factual claims or definitions I use is challenged by someone unfamiliar with them, I will defend them with textual references. 172 | Talk 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually you are required to do that. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
  • Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. You have not provided any sources at all! Intangible 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not arguing "my own point of view" or advocating anything other than reiterating basic political science definitions. If someone is skeptical about a comment I have made so far, I am ready to support my claim with any general sourcebook or textbook. It is silly to expect anyone to provide "citations" for elementary facts, especially on talk page discussions without first being asked to do so. If someone on Wikipedia claimed "the term 'communism' refers to a species within the 'bean' genus" and I disagreed with him, our claims are not equally invalid just because we both did not offer sources. We are not quite living in a world in which there is no established truth, only different opinions, after all. 172 | Talk 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Then do so, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop going in circles. You know that you have not told me what you want cited and you know it. It looks like you're just posting one-line comments on talk so that it looks like you have an excuse for reverting efforts to make this article encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You have not given any citations for any claims on this talk page. I have given that above.Ultramarine 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies in that there are two ideas of what the term communist state means. For 172 (and the majority of people discussing it here) it means a theoretical system of government. For you (Ultramarine) it may refer to individual governments, countries, whatever. Fine. However, since there is a conflict, and since you believe the term communist regime is synonymous with communist state and believe it to be equally prominent in journals, why don't you go work with that term? Since 172 and others specifically want to discuss the term communist state in a way that excludes the other less formal meanings (country/regime/etc) let them work on this article. There is no need for conflict at all - since regime could suit your purpose just fine, your persistence is creating debate where none is necessary. -- TheMightyQuill 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be POV to talk about "the communist state" and "communist regimes" in separate articles though. It is like talking about the Nazi state, their view of an organic, racist and imperialist state, but not talking about actual atrocities commited by Nazis. Similarly, empirical facts about communist states need to be presented in this article. Intangible 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a terrible comparison. Nazi were only in Germany, and it was only a shortlived regime without a chance to even set itself up with a defineable system of government. Take a look at Corporatism or Autocracy... they don't feature the mess found on this page. -- TheMightyQuill 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again. This is an article about a political science definition of a political science term "communist state." It is not an article presenting a communist point of view on government. In fact, the term "communist state" is was not used by Communist party ideologists, who instead designated the Soviet government the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the USSR a "socailist state." Also, dwelling on atrocities in an article on a form of a constitutional arrangement is silly, showing no understanding of the technical term the article is supposed to define. Doing so would be analogous to, e.g., criticizing the U.S. for slavery in the article on federal republic. It's off topic. Just define the technical term clearly and succinctly and spare the reader the unnecessary controversy and confusion. 172 | Talk 02:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Themightyquill, I don't think I entirely follow your distinction between my position from Ultramarine's position made above. A system of government deals with the constitutional structures and how they work formally. This is Poli Sci 101-- no disputing this claim. These constitutional structures were mere window dressing under communism. Nevertheless, they were based on a concept of government as held within the ideology of the ruling party in which in the constitutions of government, unlike in liberal democracies, party and state structures are embedded in each other. This claim is Comparative Gov 101-- again no disputing it. Now, there is going to be some variation in the exact wording of terms used to describe types of regimes and systems of governments. With the exception on terms dealing with major concepts like "state," "government," and "regime," the lexicon in political science is not totally standardized. This should not confuse anyone. Although in common usage, and even in many academic articles, it doesn't matter one bit whether we use the term "communist government" or "communist regime" or "communist state" at times, we are writing an encyclopedia article on a technical term referring to a subject that is not apparently very easy to grasp. So we have to be not only very careful but also very consistent with our usage of technical terms here. 172 | Talk 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of Communist State is a valid one, and only applies to the term "Communist State." You cannot write an article with your definition and simply substitute "regime" in place of "state." Correct? Ultramarine's definition of communist state, being the one in common usage, is totally synonymous with communist regime, communist government, etc, so he could write this article under the title "regime" without any problem. Correct? If you are talking about two different (though related) things, there's nothing wrong with having two different articles - it's not a POV split - so Ultramarine should do as you suggested and creat some sort of Communist regime article, and leave this one alone. -- TheMightyQuill 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the definition of communist state I am using (a form of government in which the state operates under the control of a Communist party) would fail as a definition of a "communist regime." Ultramarine's definition of communist state has not been made explict. I don't think he has put much thought in why he is reverting back to the old version of the article. Still, I agree with you, a lot of what Ultramarine is restoring in his reversions back to the old article could be written under the title "regime" with much fewer problems. Regarding a new article on "communist regimes," I suggest creating a main article on criticisms of communism#General critique of 20th century Communist regimes and summarizing that particular section of criticisms of communism as a good starting point. 172 | Talk 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
172, no matter how much I try, I cannot understand your insistence on separating the information about the theoretical framework of Communist states and the practical history of countries that operated under that framework. If we had so much material that the article was getting too long, I could understand the split. But as it stands now, with the political science side of it barely longer than a stub, there is no justification for splitting off the history into a different article. You are probably concerned that if we don't split it off, this article will degenerate into a mess. You are only half right. Yes, we should separate the political science and the history. But we should keep them as separate sections in the same article. -- Nikodemos 08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
If my explanations don't make sense, read Jtdirl's in the early archives. Perhaps he is more clear than I am. This article is just about the political science definition for a term regarding communism as a form of government-- the formal constitutional structures and how they work. The subject of the article is the term itself. 172 | Talk 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting point though, that of "constitutional window dressing." There seems to be a subtle difference between a "communist state" and a "communist system." Furthermore, is a "communist system" the same as a "socialist system"? Some would say not, some would say it is [14]. Intangible 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you're beginning to get it. In writing an article on a term used to define a constitutional form of something based on the model of the Soviet government is exactly on the topic of the formal constitutional facade, fig leaf, window dressing-- whatever the term to describe farces (like elections in the Soviet Union) typical of the communist system. As for your question on whether the "communist system" is the same as a "socialist system," it depends on the source. The Soviets did not use the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably and thus did not refer to their economic, social, and political systems as "communist." With Western specialists, the use of one term or another often in this case boils down to the preference of the author. One could refer to the Soviet economic system as "socialist," for example, based on the socialist economic order. Or one could refer to the Soviet political system as "communist," based on the fact of Communist Party rule. 172 | Talk 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we should rename this article to Communist system instead? That encompasses basically everything that needs to be said under all these terms. Intangible 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
See example this article [15], which talks about communist systems, not "communist states." You talk about constitutionality in the "communist state," but this is begging the question, since in practice this constitution was worth nothing. So you might as well keep your "communist state" article, but this will not prevent people from starting a communist system article that will talk about empirical evidence about those systems. Most of the old material in this article can then be transferred to the communist system article. Intangible 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, a communist system article gets us into the realm of doing the kind of theoretical modeling political scientists do, not encyclopedias. There are much more concrete subjects where the politics of communist rule can be discussed. I'm pretty disappointed that the important articles on concrete subjects (like, say, politics of the Soviet Union) get ignored, while an article like this (which is just supposed to be an entry on a technical term from Western political science) gets much more attention (probably because the term "communist" still gets people going even after the Cold War ended). 172 | Talk 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for excluding all criticisms of the Communist states. Either they should be mentioned in this article or prominently linked to. Also, please follow Wikipedia:Verifiability when making claims, like regarding claims of the correct defintion.Ultramarine 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the red herrings. You are not responding to any of the comments I have made at all. I'm beginning to wonder if either you or Nikodemos have even bothered to read my comments. Respond directly to any of the comments I have made above, or stop reverting. 172 | Talk 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
All your comments are unsourced personal opinions. Start following Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit. That is a lie. You have not questioned the veracity of a single comment I have made. You probably haven't even bothered to read them. 172 | Talk 21:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have given sources for statements above. I and other editors have asked you to give sources for you claims.Ultramarine 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As Intangible pointed out: "From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. You have not provided any sources at all!"Ultramarine 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a red herring and you know it, because you are obviously not interested in having a constructive, civil discussion with me. You're just playing a game here to avoid dealing with the comments I have made. Citations are not required on talk pages. I will offer citations if you are skeptical about a particular point I have made. 172 | Talk 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, read the above. This is not a forum. Give sources for your claims regarding the correct defintion of Communist states. I have given sources which contradict your unsourced personal opinions.Ultramarine 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You could also point out my reply to Intangible, which he did not/could not dispute: I am not arguing "my own point of view" or advocating anything other than reiterating basic political science definitions. If someone is skeptical about a comment I have made so far, I am ready to support my claim with any general sourcebook or textbook. It is silly to expect anyone to provide "citations" for elementary facts, especially on talk page discussions without first being asked to do so. If someone on Wikipedia claimed "the term 'communism' refers to a species within the 'bean' genus" and I disagreed with him, our claims are not equally invalid just because we both did not offer sources. We are not quite living in a world in which there is no established truth, only different opinions, after all. 172 | Talk 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Frankly, your insistence that my comments can be ignored because I have not been offering citations in a talk page discussion is trollish. No one on Wikipedia uses talk pages like that. 172 | Talk 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. So am asking you to give sources, like you stated you would. Name, authors, and page numbers please, if not a direct link.Ultramarine 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that I have offered only "unsourced personal opinions" while you have "given sources" for your definition is disgustingly dishonest. The edit history of the article makes clear that you are actually not disputing my definition of the term. Our competing versions of the article offer roughly the same wording for the same definition: Communist state is a term used by many political scientists to describe a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system. Your version My version The conflict is over the fact that you keep reinsering stuff which is totally off-topic b.s. by the standards of your own definition. Material on health care in Cuba, the environment of Central Asia, or elections in Moldova are OFF-TOPIC in an article on a form of government. 172 | Talk 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. You stated above you would provide sources if aksed. So am asking you to give these sources now, like you stated you would. Name, authors, and page numbers please, if not a direct link. Regarding the crticisms of the Communist states, deleting them violates NPOV.Ultramarine 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue of "properly referenced material" is a red herring because we are not even disputing the definition! Based on your version of the article, by the standard of your own definition (not my "unsourced personal opininion" definition or whatever you call it), the subject of the article is a political science definition for a particular form of government. [16] This article is not the place for criticisms of communism. I know you like uploading anticommunist material. I happen to agree with your politics, but our political agendas should not get in the way of writing an encyclopedia. Given the subject of the article at hand, the stuff on this history of communist rule and "crticism and advocacy" of communism is completely off topic. 172 | Talk 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You stated you would give sources for you claims if asked. So where are they? We can argue forever without sources. I argue that "Communist state" includes the real-world Marxist-Leninist states and have given a source to a political science journal using the term thus. Note that I would find it acceptable, as stated before, to prominently link to another article with these criticisms, like Criticisms of Communist regimes or Communist regimes. Do you find this acceptable? Ultramarine 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that in your very last edit you added a link to the Criticisms of communism article which is good. Still, much interesting material, not criticisims, is still lost. How about moving that to Communist regimes if you do not like it in this article? I see no reason for deleting this material from Wikipedia completely.Ultramarine 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Which claims are you referring to? Be specific. You say, I argue that "Communist state" includes the real-world Marxist-Leninist states and have given a source to a political science journal using the term... Alright, I haven't disputed this, so what's the point? Of course what you call "real-world Marxist-Leninist states" are described as "communist states." I don't think you're asking me for a source for my definition of the term "communist state" because you're using the same definition. By the standard of the definition you offer in your own reversions, a "communist state" refers to a political science term describing a form of government. Do we disgree on what constitutes a form of government? I say a form of government refers to the formal constitutional strucutres of government and how they work. This definition would be clear to anyone who has taken comparative government 101. But if you need clarifications on the difference between a "government" and a "regime," I'll be happy to point you toward some basic reading material on politics. To be honest, I don't think we're disputing any definitions here. The dispute stems from the fact that you keep restoring irrelevant material on the history of communist regimes and criticisms of communist rule. Again, the material you keep restoring in your reversions is irrelevant in an article on a term describing a form of government. For example, would you agree that criticisms of the politics of the U.S. belong in an article on federal republic (another article on a political science term describing a particular form of government)? Or would criticisms of the politics of the UK be relevant in an article on constitutional monarchy (again, another article on a political science term describing a particular form of government)?
Regarding your final question, How about moving that to Communist regimes if you do not like it in this article? Fine. I can agree to working out something like this, so long that any material in the end finds itself in an article where it would actually be germane to the subject at hand. I won't salvage the old material myself because I consider it too poorly written. But if you want to dump it somewhere else, I won't stop you. 172 | Talk 03:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine, I am now ready to restore the rewrite. I found a place for the old material. I inserted it in criticisms of communism in order to summarize the sections criticizing communist regimes. [17] Then, I move the text summarized in criticisms of communism to a new subarticle on criticisms of communist regimes. 172 | Talk 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nikodemos' revision

I basically restored my last version, except that I kept the lists of communist states. [18] I know that you didn't fully restore the old version, but I still have some problems with your revisions:

  1. The list of defunct communist states has the potential to become (or already is) a hub of original research. While the well known communist states are widely believed to merit the label, the more obscure ones may not fit the definition of a communist state—were "the institutions of the state and of the party intimately entwined"? I don't know certainly, and I'm not sure that you know certainly either; thus I'm skeptical of the veracity of the list. Moreover, I thought that this article was intended to discuss the formal state structures of communist states, rather than the states themselves. Nevertheless, I'll allow the list to remain for now, since I gather that its removal is quite controversial and would like to develop a consensus.
  2. "... and declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism." As the case of North Korea demonstrates, it is not necessary for a communist state to espouse Marxism-Leninism (North Korea abandoned the ideology in favour of Juche).
  3. "What separates Communist states from other one-party systems is the fact that . . . ." This paragraph is not the most serious of my concerns; but should we actively try to distinguish a communist state from a generic dictatorship, assuming that the reader will conflate the two things? Since the first paragraph unambiguously defines a communist state, I would think that this paragraph is redundant. Based on the definition, readers should be able to make the distinction themselves, and I expect that they will.
  4. "Not every country ruled by a Communist Party is defined as a ‘Communist state.’" Again, I think this distinction is unnecessary, since there is no ambiguity in the article's definition of the term. As with the last paragraph, my concern is with the quality of the prose (redundancy) rather than the factual accuracy of the information—not a grave matter.
  5. "Marxists define 'communism' as a form of society that abolishes private property, social classes, and the state itself. But no Communist Party-run government ever abolished social classes or the state, and private property was restricted but never fully eliminated. Therefore, since Communist Parties claimed to follow Marxism-Leninism (which is a variant of Marxism), they could not and did not call their countries 'communist'. I don't think that this elaboration is necessary. 172's revision succinctly and accurately explained that the term "communist state" is an oxymoron because communism is a form of social organization in which the state would have "withered away". There's no need to discuss whether or not communist states actually abolished social classes and private property, as that is difficult to determine in some cases. The conflict between theory and practice would require a degree of elucidation that is beyond the scope of this article.
  6. "The merger of party and state was never an official part of the system of government that existed in Communist states. Officially, the state was independent from the party, and the institutions of the state had sole authority to govern the country." If the role of the Communist Party as a vanguard is enshrined in the constitution, does that not mean that the party is officially merged with the state?
-- WGee 04:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Your comments reinforce the notion that I had earlier, that it might be best to rename this article to Communist system. Intangible 04:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
WGee: Was there a reason you nixed my mention of Belarus and Turkmenistan and why they might be considered Communist states by some? Calbaer 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, because the suggestion that Belarus and Turkmenistan are communist states is original research and false. Neither of them are controlled by nominal Communist Parties that espouse Marxism-Leninism; neither of them have constitutions which declare the state's allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or which guarantee the Party's preponderance as a vanguard. Although the two regimes have continued many of the economic and political policies of their Soviet predecessors, this article discuss formal state structures only, not regimes. -- WGee 06:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
...which is why I said that they're not considered Communist states for the article, even though there are more operational differences between China and the USSR than those states and the USSR. Calbaer 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the last sentence of your revision. Nevertheless, why should we discuss states that are not even run by nominal Communist Parties? It's glaringly evident that such states could not possibly fit the definition of communist state; thus the disclaimer is superfluous. Moreover, by asserting the similarity of Belarus and Turkmenistan to their Soviet predecessors, we are opening up a debate that is beyond the scope of this article. And, again, your disclaimer concerns the regimes of those states rather than their formal constitutional structures. -- WGee 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; I just wanted to make it more clear that the label "Communist" is self-imposed and not necessarily reflective of state operations. Calbaer 21:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/m/Talk%7ECommunist_state_9221.html"