Talk:Criticisms of communism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Criticisms of communism has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
July 2005 — November 2005 July 2005 — December 2005 November 2005 — 18 January 2006

Contents 1 Rewrite 2 Economic Development 3 Gibby, be civil 4 Factual inaccuracies and NPOV 5 Emigration 6 Factual accuracy and neutrality 7 Criticisms of capitalism 8 LTV 9 Historic Materialism 10 Suspected Original Research-- not "materialist"... 11 Relevance of the Communist states for Marxist theory 12 Comparisons 13 Loss of life 14 Emigration again 15 I want proof 16 Two extemes here 17 Removal 18 Starvation in Soviet Russia 19 Loss of Life b 20 Total deaths in Estonia 21 New edits 22 Picture of Prague sculpture 23 "One way of looking at this question would be to compare the percentage of population kept behind bars by various governments." 24 Picture of Peter Fechter 25 Makhno 26 Wondeful just Wonderful! 27 Two criticisms pages

[edit] Rewrite

I still intent to follow the goal stated under the heading "New Year goal." I am sorry for the hold up. I look forward to incorporating much of Ultramarine's text shortly. 172 18:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on that on my own, offline. I should in fact be finished with my rewrite by tomorrow or the day after. So as to avoid creating parallel versions again, might I ask you to hold off any major edits until you see my rewrite? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Development

Why is there not one mention of the fact that Communist States routinely suffer lower standards of living then their "counterparts" in almost any given region? Reading the article now we would be led to believe that the Communist nations have made the same economic progress as capitalist nations (helped along with misleading charts). CJK 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there are plenty of mentions of this criticism. For example:

• Critics 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, the Soviet Union did not achieve the same kind of development in agriculture (forcing the Soviet Union to become a net importer of cereals after the Second World War). Other Communist states, such as Laos, Vietnam or Maoist China, continued in poverty; China has only achieved high rates of growth after introducing free market economic reforms — a sign, claim the critics, of the superiority of capitalism. Another example is Czechoslovakia, which was a developed industrial country approaching Western standards prior to World War II, but fell behind the West in the post-war era.
• In general, critics of Communist states argue that they remained behind the industrialized West in terms of economic development for most of their existence...

Second, there are many capitalist nations - far more than Communist states. Whether the standards of living in Communist states were high or low depends on what capitalist nations you compare them with, and what criteria you use for comparison. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid Nikodemos is ignorantly unaware of the differences in capitalist forms. There are statist capitalists, protectionist capitalist, free market capitalist. I'm sure that Nikodemos would like to include many african, asian, and south american countries as capitalist despite their heavy anti-capitalist controls and then blame capitalism for all the problems caused by socialists policies. Its not that communism just wont work and capitalism does it better, its the fact that the more you reduce economic freedom the worse off you get. Capitalist or otherwise. (Gibby 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

That is your POV. An argument could be made that African, Asian and South American countries cannot possibly be any less capitalist than European social democratic welfare states. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing that can be noted is that the wealth disparity between rich and poor between the Soviet Union and United States was negligible. Meaning that there was the same wealth disparity between each countries rich and poor. But, the United States had far more rich, and far richer rich. Drawing from this information and given the fact that the disparity was the same you can also conlclude that America's average poor also had more wealth than the Soviet poor. (Gibby 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

I think this is a pivotal issue. Marx assumed that a socialist society would produce material abundance. Perhaps it would if workers had the freedom to innovate, but under Lenin a centralized bureaucracy was built and most odd arrangements in Russia were merged into standard patterns. Anyone who was attempting to innovate was mired in red tape. To successfully engage in any major project, a sponsor had to be found at the highest level of the government. Once found, such a sponsor, could lose favor and a major industrial project could be forced to languish. One example of this phenomenon can be found in Engineering Communism: How Two Americans Spied for Stalin and Founded the Soviet Silicon Valley, ISBN 0300108745 This is the story of Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant, American Communists who having spied for the Soviet Union, managed to successfully flee during the time of the Rosenberg trials to the Soviet Union. Despite having backing from the KGB and from Khrushchev they were eventually drug down and sidelined. Breshnev personally played a significant role in suppressing their work. Fred Bauder 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is that while economic growth is mentioned, it does not mention standards of living which were significantly different in the divided regions such as East Asia and Europe. We are only using the Soviet Union as a comparison, Communist nations elsewhere go unmentioned with regards to their growth. CJK 16:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because I was unable to find statistics for them... My source book is called Economic Growth in the Soviet Union, after all. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that's not the way to phrase it. After World War II, both Western and Eastern Europe had an economic boom, which slowed down in the East in the 1970s and 80s. Yet Western Europe provided the higher living standards. Same with Korea and China. Why is that not noted? CJK 20:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think marx believed that capitalism created the material abundance and socialism just spread it around. Marx never denied that capitalism was great at building wealth. (Gibby 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

Then you clearly don't know much about Marx. He said capitalism was great at creating wealth, but socialism would be better. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Show me where he said that (Gibby 17:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

And Nikodemos you are wrong. There is a huge difference in outcomes between statist, protectionist, and free market policies within a country. You seem to think that capitalism just means it has a monetary system and stock market. Under a strict definition statism and protectionism are not included in capitalism thus capitalism cannot be included with colonialism. I make the distinctions for the unaware populist minded people who are likely to disagree on grounds they dont even understand themselves.

Your real problem with "capitalism" is the anti free market policies you actually like...those create the problems you dislike. (Gibby 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Gibby, be civil

And stop throwing around accusations. For the sake of a coherent article, the total estimates have to come right after the paragraphs dealing with Stalin and Mao. It makes no sense to first talk about Stalin and Mao, then explain the reasons for discrepancies in the estimates, and then give total estimates. If you don't want them all in one paragraph, we can always split it up. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

it does however make sense to hide them in the body of the article where you can delete them altogether...as you have already tried to delete them about a dozen times to date. Despite having sources.

Your goal based on all your actions, has been to get rid of the total estimates while sarcastically remarking on criticisms of communism and the deaths communist countries have caused. (Gibby 18:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

I have no intention of deleting them, and, in any case, you would easily be able to tell if I did, just by looking at the diffs. I cannot "hide" anything. What I want is for this article to present all viewpoints, and that includes all the many differing estimates. Now that we have a good collection of death toll estimates by various historians, everything is fine. Honestly, Gibby, you should try being friendly for a change. You'll be amazed how much easier you will settle disputes that way. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea)

If you read above you'll remember I asked you to stop deleting these numbers which you thought were unfair to communism and "too high". I told you to get other sources and add them in. Yet you deleted a few more times before giving up. I'm allowing other sources because thats the right thing to do, but I"m not going to let you bs your way through denying your deletion of the 3 original loss of life figures. You did that multiple times (Gibby 21:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

Of course I did, because, at the time, they were the only figures that the article provided, and don't you think it's just a little unfair to provide only the highest estimates? My reasoning, as I explained at the time, was that we should either provide a wide selection of high and low estimates, or none at all. Initially I wanted to go with none at all, but, after you insisted otherwise, I went and found a wide selection of estimates and put them in. It's POV to give only the highest estimates, or only the lowest. NPOV is to give all the estimates (or none, but you are right that doing that would detract from the quality of information that the reader receives). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual inaccuracies and NPOV

Again, this has turned into an article for POV-pushers who are not interested in factual inaccuracy or NPOV. Most the criticisms against Marxist theory has been deleted and the text contains numerous factual inaccuracies. See the section "List of proposed changes above". Added template. Ultramarine 09:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

A correct, very well-referenced version can be found here [1].Ultramarine 20:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your game is up, Ultramarine. The text is now entirely well-sourced, with no less than 59 references. Furthermore, the "List of proposed changes", above, no longer applies, since the article has been substantially overhauled since you wrote it. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox! For example, no explanation has been given for the extreme deletions of well-sourced crticisms of Marxist theory! Ultramarine 04:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Your old version had a bunch of smaller sections on criticisms of Marxist theory, whereas the new version has two larger sections covering much the same information. If you wish to add back something that you think was important yet has been removed, please do so. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Simply and grossly false. See the previous crticisms of Marxist theory here [2]. If I do the slightest edit of the material of any kind, I will be accused of edit-warring. Therefore, I will add templates and seek a consensus on the talk page. Ultramarine 05:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you will not be accused of edit-warring. You are cordially invited to edit, or, at the very least, state exactly what arguments you would wish to see re-added (a short description will suffice). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

My well-sourced arguments are already presented in the link given. Ultramarine 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you are cordially invited to put them back in alongside the other well-sourced arguments. You are not invited to move your original POV text elsewhere, as you are now attempting to do. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean that you will not the delete the well-sourced material? Ultramarine 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not delete any of your references. I might rephrase the way in which you present the material, I might move paragraphs around and try to re-organize sections, I might add information from my own research, but I will not remove your points. Now, please, stop trying to move your material to other articles and bring it here where we can work on it. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I will preliminary move back the entire Marxist section. I will place it after the current similar section for the moment. Objections? Ultramarine 05:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

None. This will result in some redundancy, so I suggest placing some sort of "work in progress" template at the head of the Marxism section. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I assume you have no objections to my removing the material you re-added here from the Marxism article? Once we reach consensus here, we can write a summary of it there. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not as long as the sourced material here is not deleted. Ultramarine 06:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Now our first task here is to remove redundancies. Please note that all material from your sections "Historical materialism", "Marx's predictions" and "Pseudoscience" has been included in my section "Historical materialism". With your consent, I would like to remove the redundant sections. If you object, please point out the material that I have not included (if any exists; I can't remember), so that we may discuss it. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 06:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at predictions first:

1. Ricardo did not make any similar predictions

2. It should be mentioned that still another stage had to be invented after Lenin's "highest stage".

3. The weasel statement "Many have argued that Marx's original predictions did come true, but on a global level rather than a national one (e.g. that it is the global poor who are getting poorer, rather than the poor in any given country)." should be removed since it is both unsourced and simply false. Read the globalization article. Ultramarine 06:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ricardo did predict that workers' living standards would tend towards the subsistence level. See Iron law of wages. As far as I know, no Marxist has postulated the existence of any stage above Lenin's "highest stage". If any have done so, their views have certainly not drawn wide acceptance among Marxists. For the most part, however, Marxists argue that "neocolonialism" is simply another kind of imperialism, rather than a new stage of capitalism above imperialism. As for the last statement, I will remove it, though I will also look for references on the view that Marx's predictions did indeed come true. Anything else? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 06:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ricardo made none of the predictions Marx made. The iron law does not necessarily mean that workers must get continually poorer as Marx predicted. Yhe other points I can agree on.Ultramarine 07:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Marx and Ricardo argued that workers' wages would naturally be driven down to the subsistence level. Do you deny this? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Marx stated that the workers would get continually poorer, Ricardo did not. In addition, Ricardo thought that factprs like technological development could at least temporarily avoid the iron law. Marx instead thought that the new technology would make the workers poorer. Ultramarine 08:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely you see that there are at least similarities between Ricardo's and Marx's predictions? Marx did not pull his economic theory out of thin air, after all. He based it on the works of Smith and Ricardo. Perhaps we should mention that instead of trying to draw analogies between predictions? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How about this? Marx's predictions regarding poverty had some similarity with predictions made by other economists at the time, like Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages. Ultramarine 06:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ricardo published before Marx was born; so this proposed phrasing is somewhat misleading. Septentrionalis 22:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This goes as well: Marx's predictions regarding poverty had some similarity with predictions made by other economists before him, like Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages. Ultramarine 14:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything else? (note: I might not be online every day, so please don't wait for my reply before opening a new point; I don't know about you, but I think we should aim to reach consensus as soon as possible so that we can lie this six-month-old dispute to rest) -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

An additional point, I would like a source or removal of this "Marx himself never placed a particularly strong importance on these predictions, as he believed them to be a form of educated guesswork." There is certainly no doubt from Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto regarding these predictions. Ultramarine 07:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed, pending verification with sources. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you have re-added the TotallyDisputed tag at the head of the article, despite the fact that our dispute seems to be restricted to the Marxist theory section. Notice that the Communist states section contains all of the arguments and sources you originally brought up. As such, please state your objections to the Communist states section or remove the tag. Allegations of factual inaccuracy seem particularly far-fetched to me. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't some of the disputes relate to the emmigration section also? See the discussion on this page.--Silverback 18:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

They are not disputes of factual accuracy or NPOV; in fact, I'm not exactly sure on what grounds is the emigration section disputed. It appears that some users consider Albert Szymanski's views to be plainly wrong. That, however, does not constitute grounds for dispute. If we were all allowed to remove arguments we consider wrong, there would be very little left of this article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Are the views of a minor sociologist on a subject outside his expertise notable?--Silverback 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Today's work report: I did some merging of information from the redundant sections, I merged three small sections (general critique, tabula rasa and Marx's view of human rights) into one bigger section with no change of content for now, and I've attempted to start a rewrite of the relevance section, which was inadequate and partially redundant. I'm not entirely sure if we should keep it at all, but that's something to discuss. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's funny you guys arguing about how critical the criticism page should be.

Please read WP:NPOV. This page should describe criticisms of communism, not be one. Septentrionalis 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emigration

This section seems to out of its way to make excuses for the communists, as in going back to 18th and 19th Century Europe's emigration policy to justify the communist state's. Does anyone think that should be removed? CJK 20:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Another good example of the attempt of trying to turn Wikipedia into a soapbox. Ultramarine 20:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced information. Ultramarine, you should hardly be the one to talk about turning wikipedia into a soapbox. CJK, the source of the information in that section specifically draws a parallel between the emigration policy of 19th century Western Europe and Eastern Europe during the Cold War. It may be seen as a pro-Communist state argument, but the whole point of NPOV policy is to present arguments from all sides, isn't it? What would be your grounds for removing that section? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Why have you deleted so much well-sourced crtical material then? And replaced it with you own views like the above. This a gross attempt to turn Wikpedia into a soapbox. Ultramarine 05:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe I have deleted any material critical of Communist states; rather, I have reorganized and added a lot. In the Marxism section I have attempted to do the same, though I admit I have removed critiques of individual Marxists and their behaviour, which do not strike me as objections to Marxist theory. Please add things back in if you believe they were unjustly removed, but do not take out relevant well-sourced material. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the attempt to justify emmigration restrictions based on past practices, the relevant comparisons are contemporary. The text was wrong anyway, calling in referring to pre 19th century nations as capitalist when they were feudal or at best mercantilist.--Silverback 09:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced information. The fact that you disagree with the arguments put forward by a historian does not justify you censoring that historian. He explains that he is comparing emigration standards in Communist states to those present in capitalist states at similar stages of development. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 09:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhh... I don't think 19th Century Austria-Hungary was at the same development as 20th Century Eastern Europe, no. In fact, last time I checked Austria-Hungary had many areas which in the future would be communists. Those that were had restrictions. Those that weren't did not. This seems like a cheap attempt to pass off communist restrictions based on tradition rather than the obvious fact that millions of people wanted to get out of there. CJK 18:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me to scan the relevant pages of the book and upload them somewhere for you to read? Seriously... Cheap attempt or not, it is sourced. I think the Black Book of Communism is a cheap attempt to smear Communism by selectively presenting exaggerated accounts of its dark side while ignoring its achievements as well as the equally dark side of capitalism, but you don't see me trying to remove all mention of it on those grounds, do you? The whole point of NPOV is to present all views on a subject, even those you consider stupid or misguided. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If the Black Book makes some wild and unrelated accusation, then it can be removed as well. CJK 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way: For the record, I wish to state that, as far as my own POV is concerned, I do not support Communist states. I do, however, support the right of their advocates to have their views and opinions presented on an equal footing with those of anti-Communists. My attitude towards supporters of Communist states is "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". In any culture during any historical age, there is a dominant cultural bias that often taints discussions of recent history. I am sure a Roman would insist that Carthage was the embodiment of Evil just as vigurously as most present-day Westerners condemn Communist states. We cannot allow our own biases and views on what is "obvious" to interfere with NPOV. I guarantee you, CJK, that in 500 years the question of the goodness or evil of Communist states will be as moot as the question of the goodness or evil of the Byzantine empire is today. I advise you to write as if you lived 500 years in the future. That's what I try to do. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe 500 years from now communist states will be remembered like the Mongol Empire. You never know. But I'll stick with the present. I don't think there was anything called democracy and mass communication or freedom of speech back then. I know some of you leftists want to believe that every government is equally evil in its own way, but the fact of matter is, proven by history over and over again, is that communism has been a massive failure compared to other nations. 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

History proves nothing. History only gives you raw data, and different people interpret this data in different ways to "prove" different things. Consider, for example, the term "failure". What does it mean to fail? It means that you had a goal, you tried to achieve it, and you did not succeed in doing so. Whether X is a failure depends entirely on what its intended goals were. In some ways, the Communist states did fail - they failed to reach communism, for example. But in other ways they didn't. Did Stalin fail? No, I think he managed to achieve all his intended goals. From a purely Machiavellian standpoint, he was a smashing success. Sure, he killed millions of people, but so did Alexander the Great. All empire-builders are mass murderers, yet, more often than not, history ends up viewing them with admiration. Thus, I think it is a safe bet to say that Hitler and Stalin will one day be seen the same way we see Alexander or Hannibal or Caesar or Charlemagne today. Or Genghis Khan, now that you mention it. Read his article. Apparently he's a national hero in Mongolia. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that we have greater standards for people in the 20th Century than the previous ones. I don't see WHY you people turning over old dirt over and over again and coming up with "communism did not fail". It did fail. It did not produce justice. It did not relieve poverty efficiently. Those were the goals of Marx, Lenin, etc. CJK 21:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And, finally: Albert Szymanski does not try to justify emigration restrictions based on tradition. He does not deny that many people wanted to leave the Communist states; what he does say is that Communist states were by no means alone in recent history in having large numbers of would-be emigrants, and that other countries enforced similar measures when faced with similar population pressures. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

19th Century Austria-Hungary is not "recent history". If we want to be fair, we would have to compare the emigration with other nations at the same time. CJK 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

If we want to be fair, we cannot ignore history. In any case, you still haven't given any valid reason for the removal or sourced information. I'm still not sure what it is that you are disputing... Surely it can't be factual accuracy. Relevance? Well, you think past emigration policies are irrelevant, but Szymanski thinks that they are. Unlike some (*cough* Ultramarine *cough*), I am not a citation Nazi. I will allow you to add unsourced arguments as long as they are reasonably intuitive, and as long as all sides are presented in a NPOV manner. There is certainly nothing wrong with noting that the Communist states had emigration policies comparable to those of 19th century western capitalist countries, but much more strict than those of late 20th century western capitalist countries. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn't fair. I already explained using your Austria example. The parts of the Austrian empire that became communist had the similar emigration policies. The parts outside did not. Therefore, your comparison is simply irrelevant. CJK 21:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We could argue back and forth about this forever. For instance, I could point out that nearly all parts of the former Austrian Empire (with the single exception of Austria itself) became Communist states. But, as I keep telling you, it's not my comparison. It's Szymanski's. And it is very explicitly against wikipedia policy to remove a sourced argument on a subject just because you disagree with it. You have still not explained what you are actually disputing. It can't be accuracy, because the information is certainly true. It can't be NPOV, because the article already makes it clear that the Communist states had much harsher emigration policies than contemporary capitalist states, which is the point you keep trying to make. So I really don't see the problem. If you think the pro-Communist argument doesn't make any sense, then you should be happy about it, because an argument that doesn't make any sense won't convince anyone. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its a weasley way to bring irrelevant material about 19th Century Europe and apply it to 20th states, then act as if that is perfectly logical. CJK 20:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reason that events from the 19th CENTURY should go in here even though CLEARLY the parts of those nations (Austrian Empire and Germany) that were non-communist did not have stringent emigration policies. Perhaps this should just be pointed out in the article. CJK 23:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire commentary is well-sourced information, and it is based on the arguments provided by a book entitled "Human rights in the Soviet Union", which is in turn well-sourced and scholarly. You are not to censor arguments that you do not like. For the millionth time, I am not the one making the argument about 19th century capitalist states, Albert Szymanski is. To settle the matter, I will scan and upload the relevant pages of the book (not to wikipedia, of course), so you may read them at your leisure. Once you have done so, I will delete them. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy and neutrality

Unfortunately Nikodemos has again massively deleted well-sourced material and even removed disputing templates! See earlier discussions and the prior superior version.[3]

I have not deleted, I have merged. Please discuss my changes and improvements and my attempts to achieve consensus on a well-referenced and NPOV version. By the way, I have not deleted any of your references; I have in fact used many of them in my rewrite. I have removed disputing templates from the head of the article because only a section of it (the Marxist theory section) is under dispute. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Grossly false, for example the important section "Relevance of the Communist states for Marxist theory" has lost all references and specific examples.Ultramarine 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If you tried to edit the article, you would notice that all content is still there, except as a <!-- comment -->. I did that because it was partly redundant and partly failed to address all sides of the debate. If you find my decision objectionable, wouldn't it have been far easier to simply remove the comment brackets? I'll do that myself if you wish. Can we please go back to working towards consensus now? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the brackets. Obviously, hiding the contents is as objectionable as deleting.Ultramarine 18:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. The contents need some work, but we can take care of that later. Let's discuss changes one by one. I wish to direct your attention towards my merger of our sections on Historical materialism and the LTV. Please read them and comment. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, do you dispute anything outside the Marxist theory section? If so, what? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, but lets do one thing at a time. Ultramarine 18:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have always liked a step-by-step approach, and I understand that you may not have the time to lay down all your objections right now. Given that all my edits are very well-sourced, however, I believe that a NPOV tag is more appropriate than TotallyDisputed. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. For example, one error is stating that Cuba has had a favorable economic or social development compared with Jamaica or Latin America.Ultramarine 18:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure we could find sources for that... But you're right, let's do things one step at a time. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of capitalism

Since this article exists, maybe someone should start a criticisms of capitalism article? (An actual article, not a redirect to anti-capitalism) I know lots of people would like to piss Ultramarine off, here is your perfect opportunity! Off the top of my head, I can think of:

• colonialisation - enslaved whole foreign populations - and even occuring today.
• bogus trade wars - killing people for profit - again, occuring today.
• wage slavery - poor worker conditions - again, occuring today
• SLAVE TRIANGLE!! Yippe!!!

Wow. So capitalists kill people for profit, the communists killed people because they thought it was the right thing to do. Which is worse? Blind stupidity or lustful greed? Infinity0 ^talk 17:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. Cite sources. Note that pro-capitalits deny that colonisation was capitalism.Ultramarine 17:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

After the fact, of course. Pro-capitalists in the age of colonization were quite proud of it. But this is off-topic. Ultramarine doesn't need to get "pissed off", he needs to learn to play well with others and stop POV-pushing. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And most people deny genocide was communism, but that still doesn't stop it being used as a counter-argument... Infinity0 ^talk 17:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what the hell? Am I the only one who's taken a single Econ course here? Do you people even understand what capitalism is? Colinzation, trade wars, and the slave trade were all government sponsered practices. Yes, they were undertaken for profit; but not by the private sector. If anything, this is an example of socialism, because the 'services' were provided by governments. And poor worker conditions as a result of capitalism -- right, because under communism, everyone is rich and happy. We have unions today to ensure that workers have adequete conditions. And if someone is dissatisfied with their job...they can quit. And don't say "they need that job to survive;" with rare exceptions, there are plenty of sources of employement in capitalist nations.

Here, I think, is the point of contention: if a commmunist government does something bad, it's the fault of communism. If a capitalist government does something bad, it isn't the fault of capitalism. It may seem unfair to view the situation like this; but capitalism can operate without a government; under communism, the government is the only institution. See what I'm saying? So you can look at corporations, and blame their actions on capitalism; but you can't do the same with 'capitalist' governments. --Xiaphias 21:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, "communism" is supposed to be a stateless society. And economics doesn't teach you what you need to know about "capitalism" the social system. -- infinity0 21:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no reason to differentiate between corporations and governments when applying "blame".

• "Colinzation, trade wars, and the slave trade were all government sponsered practices." - yeah, because they didn't involve private companies at all (!)
• "if a commmunist government does something bad, it's the fault of communism. If a capitalist government does something bad, it isn't the fault of capitalism." - capitalist corporations are more part of capitalism than governments.

-- infinity0 21:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LTV

1. "R. H. Tawney derives it, through John Locke, from the scholastic justum pretium." Unsourced, false, strange. Ultramarine 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not my addition; therefore, I can't vouch for it and I don't know what the original writer intended. If no one objects in the next few days, I will remove it. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The source is Russell's History of Western Philosophy, section on Locke. I have not read all of Tawney. I regret Ultramarine's habit of dubious claims of exhaustive knowledge of literature. Restoring.Septentrionalis 16:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

2. "Marx also stated that only labor could cause an increase in value. This suggests that labour intensive industries ought to have a higher rate of profit than those which use less labor which is empirically false. Marx explained this by arguing that in real economic life prices vary in a systematic way from values. Providing the mathematics to explain this is known as the transformation problem." The criticsm of that only labor could cause an increase in value has been lost.Ultramarine 11:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I will include that point. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All objections have been addressed. Shall we consider our disputes on this section resolved? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historic Materialism

1. "This is especially true when many people and a long time is involved. Popper agreed on this, but instead used it as an argument against central planning and all ideologies that claim to know the future." This should be added to the Popper section.Ultramarine 18:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Will do. (btw, if it's a matter of adding or removing single sentences, you might want to do it yourself rather than requesting it in Talk - it's faster that way, particularly if no one objects) -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to the arbcom decision, I prefer to to not make any edits to the body of the article.Ultramarine 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

2. "In turn, the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel can be considered the basis of Historical materialism. Max Stirner has argued that this philosophy leads to nihilism and not to historical materialism." Ultramarine 18:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no particularly strong objections to putting that back in, but I removed it because it seemed rather tangential to the subject. Historical materialism is partly Hegelian, that is true, but including criticisms of Hegel on a page about communism seems to me to be going too far back (a bit like including critiques of Western philosophy itself; they would of course apply to Marxism - among many other things - but the object of such critique would not be Marxism itself). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Marx himself reacted strongly to this criticism, so it is worth including. Ultramarine 08:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I will do so. But first, would you mind pointing me to Marx's strong reaction that you mention? I would like to say something about that too. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you will accept this, see influence in Max Stirner.Ultramarine 17:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I have added your note on Hegel and Stirner, with a complementary note on Marx's response. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

All objections have been addressed. Shall we consider our disputes on this section resolved? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Original Research-- not "materialist"...

The current text reads:

Critics argue that it ignores other causes of historical and social change, like biology, genetics, philosophy, art, religion, or other causes that are not "materialist" according to Marxists.

This statement claims that biology etc. are not "materialist" according to Marxists. This is suspected as "original research". The question to be considered is "who concluded" that these items are not "materialist"? Was it a Marxist? Was it a known critic? Or was it the editor. If it was the editor, then this is original research.

Statements of this sort need to be supported by verifiable sources. If no verifiable sources are offered within 48 hours, or a request made for time to find such verifiable sources, then I will remove the phrase "according to Marxists" from the text.

--BostonMA 18:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Read about the Marxist Superstructure. Ultramarine 18:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not know if the above comment was intended as a verifiable source. It is not. 1. It is a wikipedia article, 2. It does not support the claim that to Marxists, biology, genetics etc. are not "materialist".

Therefore, I continue to request that a verifiable source be provided.

As an aside, I have read Marxist literature extensively. That is why I believe the comment to be in error. However, whether or not it is in error is not the essential question. If Popper, or other author worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, claims that Marxists hold that biology, genetics etc. are not "materialistic", then that is a POV which deserves mention. However, it does require verifiable sources. --BostonMA 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We can remove biology and genetics. The other things are undoubtedly correct. Source: Marx, Karl. The 1859 Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Ultramarine 19:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to remove biology and genetics. However, I believe the issue of verifiable sources still applies to philosophy, art, religion. I have read the Preface you cite, and do not find that it supports the claim made in the article. It seems that your POV is that "superstructure" translates as "non-material" or "non-materialist", as the article puts it. Please provide a verifiable source which states that superstructure is non-material (or non-materialist). --BostonMA 19:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To quote Marx "The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life." "The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic — in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out." Ultramarine 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the first sentence you site, i.e.:

"The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life."

is "The mode of production", not "material life".

The second quotation is closer to supporting your interpretation. The subject of the first sentence in your second quote is

"changes in the economic foundation".

The second sentence describes two aspects of such changes:

"the material transformation of the economic conditions of production"

on the one hand, and

"the legal, political...forms in which men...fight it out"

on the other. I believe that a reasonable interpretation of these sentences is that "material" in the first aspect does not stand alone, but only as a qualifier for "transformation of economic conditions of production". Thus, what is placed in contrasted to legal, political, etc. forms is not the material in general but the transformation of economic conditions, to which the description "material" has been applied.

You may be interested to know that both Plekhanov, the "father" of Russian Marxism, and Lenin, argued against interpretting Marx in the manner you propose.

However, neither my interpretation, nor my interpretation of Plekahnov or Lenin is really the issue that needs deciding. I think the quote that you have provided, if it is to support the conclusion that for Marxists, the material in general is opposed to the legal, political etc, requires interpretation. If that interpration is performed by the editor, then that is original research. However, if that interpetation was performed by an author worthy of mention in an encyclopedia then it is such an interpretation deserves mention. --BostonMA 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is an example of criticism by an outside source "A second problem is his claim that religion is wholly determined by material and economic realities. Not only is nothing else fundamental enough to influence religion, but influence cannot run in the other direction, from religion to material and economic realities. This is not true. If Marx were right, then capitalism would appear in countries prior to Protestantism because Protestantism is the religious system created by capitalism — but we don’t find this. The Reformation comes to 16th century Germany which is still feudal in nature; real capitalism doesn’t appear until the 19th century. This caused Max Weber to theorize that religious institutions end up creating new economic realities. Even if Weber is wrong, we see that one can argue just the opposite of Marx with clear historical evidence."[4]Ultramarine 13:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that Austin Cline, the author of your quote is notable, nor is the writing you cite peer reviewed. Nevertheless, since this is an article about criticism of communism, I think he is a primary source as a critic of communism. I don't mind you including your interpretation of materialism, provided that it is clear that this is the view of your source (i.e. Austin Cline), rather than the view of Wikipedia. I.e. "According to Austin Cline, etc.", but not in the current form. Others, however, may object to your source, and so I speak only for myself. --BostonMA 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would state it like this. "For example, Max Weber have argued that capitalism cannot be the cause of protestantism since it appeared while Europe was still feudal. Instead, he thinks it is more likely that protestantism influenced the development of capitalism." Ultramarine 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Please change the text accordingly. Thanks for the discussion. --BostonMA 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The current wording implies that Marx himself claimed that capitalism was the cause of protestantism, which is plainly and absolutely false. Marx claimed that material conditions shape religious institutions, and critics, such as Max Weber, argue that things can go the other way around (religious institutions shaping material conditions). That is what the article should say. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue is still not resolved. I was under the impression that you would change the existing text, but you only added new text. The existing text still implies that Marxists regard art, etc. as non-material or non-"materialist". Unless I hear back, I will remove that phrase. --BostonMA 16:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As I quoted before, Marx regarded " legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic" as secondary to materialistic, economic factors.Ultramarine 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

We can add the direct quote from Marx if you prefer.Ultramarine 16:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How about Marx argued that ""The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.". Critics have disputed this." Ultramarine 16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The last version is fine. I will make a change. --BostonMA 17:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of the Communist states for Marxist theory

Now to the heart of the matter. What are the objections to my version? Ultramarine 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What's your version? Infinity0 ^talk 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is my version [5]. Traditionally, this has been almost completely deleted. Or hidden, as recently. I would be glad to hear concrete objections. Ultramarine 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Executed 100,000?" - source?

"They rejected the concept of liberal democracy" - source?

"there were human rights violations even during the few months the Commune existed." - what regime hasn't committed human rights violations? needs comparison.

The whole section is probably better in "Criticism of 20th Century States" as it does not address the validity of Marxist theory. Infinity0 ^talk 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that the footnotes doesn't work properly in an "old" version. But you can find the correct reference by noting the number and looking in the reference list at the end of the article. You are right that we may mention that there were much larger atrocities after the fall of the Commune. The section about Lenin's human rights violations may also be better moved. Ultramarine 23:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they weren't attached with any footnotes. But it shouldn't be too hard to find some sources and verify them. Infinity0 ^talk 00:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

For exections, for example this [6]. For rejection of liberal democracy, see this [7]. They are both in the footnotes, but maybe they not placed clearly in the text.Ultramarine 10:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, Firefox copies lists in wikipedia format. How handy.

1. Red Terror

• Executed: 50-200,000
• Died in prison or killed in revolts: 400,000

Imprisoned a few hundred thousand and executed ~100,000 (not plural) is better wording. Infinity0 ^talk 16:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Atm the second source from marxists.org won't load for me, I'll check it later. Infinity0 ^talk 16:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the second source you provided:

... in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord. ...

Sounds like Marx and Engels was very much FOR democracy. So that line should be removed. Infinity0 ^talk 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that I said liberal democracy. Marx: "“While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people,...” [Civil War in France, Chapter 5]"

As noted in the text, Marx commitment to direct democracy is disputed. Ultramarine 16:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed? I think it's better if you use Marx's own terms, namely bourgeois democracy and proletarian democracy to prevent misrepresentation of what he actually advocated. Infinity0 ^talk 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, liberal democracy and direct democracy are the ordinary and neutral names. "bourgeois democracy" and "proletarian democracy" are inherently POV. Ultramarine 16:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not really. You're trying to explain what Marx thought, you should use what Marx thought. It's not like you're using bourgeois democracy to describe non-Marxist stuff. Infinity0 ^talk 17:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that Marx used those terms. They were probably invented by Lenin. Do you have any quotes by Marx?Ultramarine 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bourgeois democracy search proletarian democracy search To sum up, Marx is talking about democracy for the proletariat (the masses) as a contrast to the democracy for the bourgeoisie (the few) which existed in his day. Neither "liberal democracy" nor "direct democracy" mean those things. Infinity0 ^talk 17:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. This does however rather strengthen Lenin's argument that the state he created followed Marx and Engel's vision.Ultramarine 17:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

---

My primary objection to your version, Ultramarine, is one of wording and POV. Your version appears to imply that only anti-communist believe Communist states followed Marxism, which is not the case. Both anti-communists and communists who support the Communist states agree on this point. Those who disagree are communists or other Marxists who oppose the Communist states. There is also a large body of people who frankly don't care either way. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 07:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To illustrate my objections, I will soon begin editing your version (though some of the edits will be merely intended to eliminate redundancy). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons

The article says that comparisons between capitalist and communist nations are determined largely by what places are being compared and thus it can't be determined one way or another. It says that Cuba, like West Germany, was more developed than Jamaica/East Germany.

Is this true? Is it true that West German lead in industry to East Germany was the same proportionately as Cuba vs. Jamaica? Are we to believe, given that EVER SINGLE Communist nation in Europe was poor while every single non-communist nation became rich, that this was all do to inequality in industry? Are we to believe that if Germany remained entirely capitalist after World War II Eastern Germany would have been equally poor? I don't think so. What about North vs. South Korea? Or Taiwan vs. China? Why aren't those mentioned? CJK 21:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The statemetns regarding Cuba is unsourced and should be removed. Compare this alternative version [8].Ultramarine 12:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not true that "every single Communist nation in Europe was poor while every single non-communist nation became rich". What measure of "rich" and "poor" are you using? Are you taking into account the immediate post-WW2 economic situation of the nations involved? From 1945 to 1980, the Communist states of Europe experienced higher economic growth than the capitalist states. I am not sure if Cuba was proportionately more developed than Jamaica as West Germany was more developed than the East. That statement about Cuba's development was put in there to appease anti-communists (i.e. Ultramarine) who were looking for an explanation of why Cuba has the highest life expectancy and literacy rate in Central America (as reported by the CIA World Factbook). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you please give sources for all your claims? Ultramarine 12:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I see no source for example your claims regarding Europe.Ultramarine 12:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the standard of living and GNP/GDP, which were worse in Communist States. Furthermore it is true that "every single Communist nation in Europe was poor while every single non-communist nation became rich". Or at leat richerAnd it isn't true that economic growth rates were generally higher in Communist States. CJK 20:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We have already established, with sources, that growth rates in the Soviet Union were generally higher than in the United States or Western Europe. I will look for similar sources regarding Eastern Europe. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If you are "not sure" about the statement being true, then I suggest the comparison between Cuba and West Germany be dropped. CJK 20:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. I never supported that comparison anyway, as I explained above. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the referenced content from both versions to Economic and social development of the Communist states. Hopefully we can expand it with more history and other other sections.Ultramarine 17:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I think you should at least keep a stub-section in this article, and use the {{main}} tag to link to Economic_and_social_development_of_the_Communist_states. Infinity0 ^talk 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. There is no reason why that particular section, and not others, should get its own article. Either we split this entire criticisms article into various sub-articles, which would be a very bad idea in my opinion, or we keep the current structure and refrain from creating sub-articles. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

One last thing: As it stands now, this article is among the best sourced on wikipedia, and, with a bit more work, we could settle our NPOV disputes and close debate. Ultramarine has an unfortunate tendency to create massive and unnecessary disputes where none existed before. Thus, I urge you, Ultramarine, to be reasonable for once and work towards closing debate on this article that has been contentious for seven months. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 05:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased, as can be seen by comparing the current and this version [9]. Nikodemos version of economic and social development reads like a communist pamphlet, not like a criticism. The name itself seems pov, so creating other articles for the relevant material would be better. Ultramarine 13:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Reads like criticism"?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? NPOV is not supposed to sound like ANYTHING. This article is supposed to be about criticism of communism, not an actual criticise of communism. Infinity0 ^talk 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I stated "reads like a communist pamphlet". Anyhow the title of the whole article is inherently POV. Ultramarine 17:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No it is not. As pointed out before, there are numerous articles entitled "Criticisms of X". There is even an entire category devoted to them. And if you believe my text is poorly worded, please suggest how it may be rephrased (without altering the content, of course). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the current content of Economic and social development of the Communist states incorporates the referenced contents of both versions. Please state any specific objecions there. Ultramarine 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussing the matter there might be seen as an endorsement of the existence of that article. I do not see why one particular section of this article should be broken off, nor do I see why Communist states need to get an article on "Economic and social development" when no other kind of governing system or economic model has such an article. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of life

The loss of life figures deserve some more commentary and disclaimer. I've read a book on the subject of deaths in china a while ago where some of the (higher) death figures were examined closely and found to be largely fictional. If someone can get hold of this book, please add some information from it: Deaths in China Due to Communism: Propaganda Versus Reality by Stephen Rosskamm Shalom [10]. Jens Nielsen 11:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang, Jon Halliday ISBN: 06794-2271-4 Publisher: Random House Inc Publish Date: 18 October, 2005 Binding: Hardcover , 814 pages sets the number at 70 million. Fred Bauder 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emigration again

Critics find fault with this logic, noting that future non-Communist nations located in the above areas did not have similar stringent emigration policies during the Cold War while Communist nations did.

The above areas appear to be Romania, Serbia, and Russia. This sentence is not only unsourced (what critic is CJK thinking of, other than himself?), it is opaque. What nations "in the above areas" were non-communist during the Cold War? and if it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

If it were intelligible, it might be easier to defend. Septentrionalis 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Read it again before attacking me for being unintelligible, it also mentioned Germany and the Austrian Empire. And the only reason I'm adding this is because someone wants to insert some absurd comparison to the 19th Century. CJK 22:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I took it to mean western europe. Obviously CJK is thinking of himself, but there are probably others who agree. That's why I added the {{fact}} tag. Infinity0 ^talk 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag until you explain what part you don't believe. CJK 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source for "they did not have strict emigration policies". Infinity0 ^talk 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean Austria and West Germany? OK. I can look... but I thought that was obvious. CJK 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, assuming based on something's always better than assuming based on nothing, right? The reader needs at least that. Infinity0 ^talk 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you don't believe that West Germany had more lenient emigration policies than East Germany and are making me go half way across the internet to prove it? CJK 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have no reason to believe either way, since I haven't come across anything about it. So, I'm assuming most readers won't have. So a source is needed. Besides, if you're so confident it's true, it shouldn't be hard. Infinity0 ^talk 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I want proof

That Western Europe was more industrialized to Eastern Europe proportionately to Cuba and Jamaica. CJK 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether this four-fold proportion is true or false. I do know the article doesn't say it. Septentrionalis 21:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Section "Economic and social development": "Both critics and supporters of Communist states often make comparisons between particular Communist and capitalist countries, with the intention of showing that one side was superior to the other. Critics prefer to compare East and West Germany; supporters prefer to compare Cuba to Jamaica or Central America." Ultramarine 22:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is the part I was referring to. CJK 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The actual claim tagged by CJK is, "No two countries are identical; Western Europe was more developed and industrialized than Eastern Europe long before the Cold War, and Cuba was more developed than many of its Central American neighbors before the Cuban revolution."

The sentences Ultramarine quoted are not equivalent to this. Neither is the summary at the top of the section: the claim that "W>E and C>S" is not equivalent to "W:E~C:S". Nevertheless, the request for citation is fair, so I offer this link. [11] According to this site,

"Cuba's exports in 1958 far exceeded those of Chile and Colombia, countries which have since left Cuba behind. The lack of diversification of Cuba's exports over the past 35 years also is remarkable, when compared with other countries in the region."

If current exports are remarkable for lack of diversity, by implication, its pre-Castro exports were diverse. It goes on:

"Cuba's enviable productive base during the 1950's was strengthened by sizable inflows of foreign direct investment. As of 1958, ... direct investment in Cuba was $861 million ... more than USD 4.3 billion in today's dollars."

That degree of direct investment seems consistent with the claim.

"While U.S. firms were moving away from sugar, they were rapidly investing in a range of other ventures, especially in infrastructure development. According to U.S. government statistics, 41 percent of U.S. direct investments in Cuba were in utilities as of 1958."

I tried putting this in, but preview showed I was screwing up the reference style. This is probably not the best citation available in any case, but I offer it FWIW. Robert A West 08:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two extemes here

I propose the following compromise between Ultramarine and Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea): 1. Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) stuff stays, but agrees not to heavily edit, rephrase, or remove any paragraphs critical of communism 2. Ultramarine gets to edit as much as he wants of his stuff back in, but agrees not to heavily edit, rephrase, or remove any paragraphs countering critisism of communism

And both agree to a policy that: It doesn't matter if you judge an addition to be poorly supported - in that case you should try to improve the addition (or wait for others to improve it) rather than remove it (unless it's blatant vandalism).

Neither of you seem objective and unbiased (where words like "claim" and "accuse" are and are not used seems to have a pattern...), but at least that way we could have an roughly balanced article. I hope the two of you can see how it would be better for Wikipedia for you to make such an agreement, rather than this "No edit goes through without MY approval" thing Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea)'s got going on.

To remain true to its title, this article should focus on criticisms of communism, not on criticisms of criticisms of communism (which is what the vast majority of the article is now dedicated to). So Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea), you should ease off a little - there's probably another article more appropriate for everything you want seen.

This article is about criticisms of communism, not an actual criticism of communism. The responses stay. And using your no-deletion approach, the article will become bloated. Infinity0 ^talk 15:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I was advocating a no-delete policy only for Ultramarine and Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea).

[edit] Removal

I'm removing the following paragraph. I don't know what it's based on; but it makes no sense, and it certianly isn't grounded in economics. 'Losing' in competition refers, I can only assume, to obtaining a smaller-than-desired share of the market. This does not inherently result in negative profit. And how does fear of competition cause people to not contribute to society? Competition forces people to work harder (or at least, more efficiently), or lose out to their competitiors.--Xiaphias 05:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, it may be argued by communists that the high productivity in capitalism that allegedly provides the people's "wants" comes from high competition, in which the "losing" corporation make no profit despite their labor; this may prove as incentive for many insecure individuals not to start a company to contribute to society.

I see an argument there. It's not one I would make, so I am reluctant to rewrite it; please no-one be doctrinaire.Septentrionalis 21:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand it; and if I can't understand it most readers can't either. If someone does understand the point that is trying to make, rewrite it; but otherwise it should be commented out. -- infinity0 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is clearer, if much longer. It might usefully be translated back into the original language of discourse:

The high productivity of captialism arises from competition. It has long been observed that most joint-stock enterprises fail; Adam Smith said all corporations that require managerial discretion have gone bankrupt. Communists may argue that the risk premium involved here will often outweigh the potential profit in the valuation of many insecure members of society who would, under a system offering greater security, engage in active and original enterprises for the common good. Under actually existing politics and government, this problem may well be aggravated; as Hayek observed at some length, businessmen will prefer to operate a government-enforced monopoly. Against this, new enterprises are even less likely to prosper.

I am glad that Xiaphias and Infinity0 are getting along so civilly. Septentrionalis 03:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starvation in Soviet Russia

Some have argued that it is unfair to judge Communist states more harshly than other regimes, on issues such as famine, because large numbers of people still die from hunger all over the world. For instance, some have estimated that hunger currently kills 24 thousand people daily.[34] Critics argue that the deaths from famine are the responsibility of the government, because government policies created an economic environment incapable of reacting to such natural disasters. However, counter-critics argue that famines in the world today can be similarly blamed on capitalist pursuit of globalisation. [citation needed]

This paragraph -- and the entire section from which it comes...seems wildly pro-Communist, and moreover, wrong. The famine during soviet Russia was the fault of the government. Period. Grain export levels went up duing the same period that millions died of starvation. The government simply wasn't allocaing its resources efficiently. I don't have the statistics here right now; but if you don't believe this to be true, I can probably obtain some.

Anyways, my point is that this section, the "excuses for Communist deaths" section, seems very POV.--Xiaphias 04:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Then so label it with {{POV-section}} and this can be discussed. What you are doing is provoking another revert war, of which this page has already had more than enough. Septentrionalis 06:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What I am doing, Septentrionalis, is pointing out a factual error. I didn't delete the paragraph. --Xiaphias 07:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I deleted the paragraph. I read it again, and it's just wildly wrong; it's no differant then putting up an incorrect name or date on Wikipedia. Allowing information that's just outright false to remain on a page...how is that in accordance with Wikipedia policy?--Xiaphias 07:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Infinity, why reinsert but ignore discussion? No dice. Talk to me about it, or it's out. --Xiaphias 19:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Xiaphias, the point is the issue of "responsibility". Today, hunger problems in Africa can be similarly blamed on corporations engaging in unfair trade. This point must be mentioned. Infinity0 ^talk 20:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that, in Soviet Russia, enough food was produced -- more than enough -- but the government was unwilling or unable to siphon that food to the people that actually needed it, and exported it instead. If not for the government, those people wouldn't have died. Do you see what I'm saying? It's a direct relationship here; a direct causal relationship. I mean, even farmers were suffering from hunger, because they weren't allowed to keep any portion of their crop - it was all given to the government, which oversaw (and had complete authority and responsibility over) redistribution.

How are corporations responsible for starvation in Africa? And how is that relevant? --Xiaphias 20:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This may well be true in 1931; it's controversial. Clearly false of 1921. Septentrionalis 21:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not fair to blame an organisation (in this case the government) for misdistributing food whilst not blaming another organisation (private companies) for doing the same thing. In both cases, I doubt anyone WANTED to kill people. -- infinity0 21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; it's doubtful that even Stalin actually wanted his people to starve to death. The problem came from his (and other communist leaders') insistence on increasing productivity. When this wasn't achieved to the desired degree, people lied to their superiors to hide the fact. Thus, to those at the top, it seemed as though much more food was being produced than actually was; hence, when they decided to export it, it seemed as though there would be enough left domestically. This scenario explains a good deal of the famine problems during communist regimes.

My point here isn't that they wanted to kill people; rather, I'm merely trying to refute the notion that people starved in Soviet Russia do to lack of food production, which is the implication in the deleted paragraph.

Are you referring to a specific incident, with regard to private companies doing the same thing?--Xiaphias 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

But many people use the "starvation" argument to condemn the USSR, but ignore other cases of man-caused starvation. I still feel this must be pointed out. No, I am not referring to a specific indicent, but it is implausible to believe that all corporations behave themselves. -- infinity0 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is, it is in corporations' best interest to feed people; so while they don't necessarily "behave themselves," they *do* provide food. The goal of farming consortiums is to make as much of their product available to as many people as possible; hence, in this case at least, the needs of the people and the wants of corporations are complimentary -- people want to eat, companies want them to buy food. Since companies are more efficient at resource distribution, they're better equiped to feed the public than government -- any government, communist or otherwise.

If you can highlight an instance in which this was not the case, we could discuss that specifically.--Xiaphias 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's in the corporations best interest to make money. That can be achieved any number of ways. Similarly, it could be argued that it's in government's best interests to feed their citizens. I see no difference between corporations and current governements - current governments compete with each other, too. Basic assumptions like "it's in corporations' best interest to serve their customers" assume people are rational.

But, anyway, this is irrelevant to the point of the debate, which is whether that section should be included or not. I've changed it a little, look at the diff, see what you think. -- infinity0 16:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of Life b

Infinity - yeah, I guess in an article as politically-charged as this, I shouldn't have modified this section at all without discussion. Anyways, my proposed changes are as follows:

Different researchers work with different definitions of what it means to be killed by one's government. The low estimates may count only executions and labor camp deaths as instances of government killing, while the high estimates may be based on the assumption that the government killed everyone who died from famine or war, and those who are unaccounted for. This issue is further complicated by the decrease in birthrate during this period, distorting population figures.

This current point is a bit long; I removed a redundant sentence. In a book I'm currently reading ('The Dark Valley' by Knopf, if I'm not mistaken) it is mentioned that some historians estimate the number of dead as being too high, because the decreased number of births makes the death rate appear inflated. So, I added that.

All these numbers are estimates derived from incomplete data. Due to poor and deceptive recordkeeping by Communist regimes of the Cold War era, researchers often have to extrapolate and interpret available information in order to arrive at their final numbers.

Any historian can verify that communist leaders - especially the big two - hid or distorted the true numbers; I doubt there'll be any objections to phrasing this point accordingly.

DELETE: Finally, this is a highly politically charged field, with nearly all researchers having been accused of a pro- or anti-Communist bias at one time or another.

This point seems to imply that historians are inherently pursuing a political agenda; working in this field, I take issue with that. As it is sourceless and potentially inflammatory, I suggest it is removed. This shouldn't upset either side, as the sentence clearly says "pro or anti-Communist bias," implying that there is misinformation from both sides.--Xiaphias 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The death-rates thing may be good, but you should try to use one sentence to explain it, unless it's a majority opinion (which I have never heard of).

It says "deceptive recordkeeping". Maybe you missed that?

Also, I think it should at least be mentioned that some research may have been biased due to pressure and/or the researcher's own bias. -- infinity0 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't organize that very well...the first two paragraphs are my proposed changes. It doesn't currently say "deceptive recordkeeping", that's my revision.

And true, I suppose it should be acknowledged that political biases do effect the situation; but the current wording ("nearly all reasearchers") implies that the problem is much more endemic.--Xiaphias 22:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should say "poor or deceptive" rather than and - otherwise you're implying all regimes. For the third point, maybe it's better to be vague, as so not to imply anything that may be false, eg "highly-charged - many people attacked, inc. historians. some may have their own biases"

Also, next time could you write the original down here too, so it's easier to compare. Or, alternatively, use Inserted and deleted tags to mark what you changed. -- infinity0 22:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total deaths in Estonia

Is that really necessary? The section already details the total deaths the USSR caused in total. Focusing on Estonia is somewhat undue weight. And it doesn't give any information to the reader about the USSR in other countries. It's probably better suited to the Estonia article or some other Estonia-specific article. -- infinity0 11:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New edits

Total loss of life - insertion

I added this sentence in the first paragraph: "The question is complicated by the lack of hard data and by ideological biases of those offering death toll estimates. It should also be noted that the authors trying to expose communist systems as immoral and inhumane often tend to ignore the other side of the question, namely the deaths caused by capitalist governments in numerous wars of the 19th and 20th century." Bublick439 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Added section - Oppression versus Freedom

I think it offers a fresh perspective on the words "liberty" and "freedom" that are often tossed around by both sides in the debate. This shows that both the formerly Communist Russia (most likely true for the Soviet Union too) and the United States have extremely high percentages of population behind bars. Bublick439 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Reasons for discrepancies section - insertion

I inserted the following sentences in the last paragraph: "The estimated death toll of the two World Wars, which hardly had anything to do with communism, is over 85 million (Encyclopedia Encarta), not to mention numerous other wars of the 19th and 20th century waged by capitalist governments." AND "It would be fair to say that neither capitalism nor communism can claim a monopoly on morality" Bublick439 21:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

Yeah, I thought those were fine - in the future, you don't have to explain all your edits on the talk page - use the edit summary instead. If nobody disagrees with it, that means they think it's OK. :) -- infinity0 21:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. I will read the rules more closely Bublick439 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Bublick439

[edit] Picture of Prague sculpture

I added a picture of an anticommunist sculture (Image:Prague - sculpture-communism.jpg).

IM Honest Opinion the picture is relevant.Randroide 17:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Randroide

It's really ugly and without a meaningful caption it pushes the POV that communism is bad. -- infinity0 17:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The sculpture is ugly because the artist thought that Communism was also ugly.

POV?. What are you talking about?.We are presenting facts, man, and in the page "Criticisms of communism" we are going to present arguments made by other people against communism. And a work of art, no doubt about it, IS AN STATEMENT ABOUT SOMETHING. Look, man, I had my bitter fights with communist spanish-speaking wikipedians, and I won most of them. I am not on my turf here, in the english wikipedia, but if you want a fight about this picture, I am going to fight, because I have the CONVICTION that THIS PICTURE BELONGS HERE. If you have better arguments against this picture in this page, please tell me. Have good premises.Randroide 18:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Randroide.

This picture is pointless. It does nothing for the article. It provides no information to the reader. Great, someone made an anti-communist sculpture? So what? There are plenty of anti-capitalist art out there too, but I'm not about to insert them into articles because they don't contain good information. -- infinity0 18:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "Criticisms of X" is supposed to be ABOUT criticisms, not an actual crticism. This is for WP:NPOV. -- infinity0 18:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "One way of looking at this question would be to compare the percentage of population kept behind bars by various governments."

This is a false criterion for measuring the freedom of the country, and since the section in question has been reinstated into the article by User:Infinity0 (his reason was that it caused a bug) I propose either a rewrite with a valid criterion or deletion. The Soviet Union had no freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of press, freedom of education (actually they may of), no freedom from slavery (Stalin sent people to gulag camps at will) and their human rights record was appalling as, if not more appalling than the USA. That is not to say that democracies put limits on some freedoms though, but the USA enjoyed most of the above rights during the Cold War. Putting people behind bars depends on various factors, and is not a measure of freedom in any sort of country. Perhaps the nature of the punishments given could be a vague indicator. --Knucmo2 18:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed a part of a paragraph which was cuasing a whole section not to appear. Check the diff. I had no intention of changing any content, so rewrite as you want. -- infinity0 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Mais oui! The reason you gave was completely valid, don't get me wrong. --Knucmo2 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, the current content doesn't have any good information about the actual point. Actually in the USSR education was good and there was no poverty. It can be argued that freedom of speech, worship, press etc are charateristics of totalitarianism and not communism, though. I don't know much else about this; I can only think of two sentences to add, maybe you have more? -- infinity0 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The above I gave where all sorts of freedoms that were restricted under numerous communist regimes, namely China and the USSR. There was poverty, certainly for the many farmers that starved as a result of Stalin's collectivisation. So, I suppose the curtailment of freedoms was an aspect of the communist state in the 20th century, regardless of what Marx had to say about such matters. As regards paragraph length, I think one should be enough, anything but the irrelevancy that is currently the case --Knucmo2 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Apart from poverty caused by "natural" disasters, the govt kept the prices of vital goods low enough so everyone could afford them. That's what I meant. It should be noted that (it can be argued that) the curtailment of freedom is not unique to the communist states, however. -- infinity0 21:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job tidying up my rewrite up. As it stands we now have a valid criterion documenting the freedoms afforded in each country. --Knucmo2 13:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Peter Fechter

There is nothing polemic about this picture. Peter Fechter's death is a fact. The killings of the people who tried to escape from East Germany by crossing Berlin Wall are also a fact. -- Vision Thing -- 16:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There's an infinite array of images related somehow to communism one could insert here. So the rough criteria behind the selection of particular images to post here matter more than the veracity of the factual claims. I'm concerned that the insertion of emotive images such as the Fechter death may affect the tone of the article. Rather than staying focused on documentations of the discourses criticizing communism (what the article should be), the article could be come a criticism of communism in and of itself. The more fitting pictures here would be images of the leading figures shaping public discourse on communism, such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Milovan Djilas, and Robert Conquest.

Vision Thing, on a personal note, as you strike me as a well-informed with a low tolerence for attempts to whitewash the facts about communism, if you have the time or inclination, I'll appreciate it if you take a look at the Cuba article. A few other editors and I have been confronted by lots of intransigence from a group of editors insisting, ridiculously enough, that Fidel Castro's regime is a "democracy!" The more help we get from editors better in touch with reality, the better. Regards. 172 | Talk 09:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think some of Conquest's criticisms are in the article, even if they are not credited to him. Solzhenistyn's criticisms were of course a constant theme of his novels. I am not familiar with Djilas though; is he a dissident? --Knucmo2 11:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my post. We were talking about including pictures in the article. I pointed out that given the topic, it would make sense to include pictures of dissidents and intellectuals (hence my examples of Solzhenistyn and Djilas) who shaped the world's discourse on communism... Djilas was a Yugoslav Communist politician who became increasingly critical of his party in the 1950s. He was eventually imprisoned. As a dissident, he became one of the leading political theorists of the late 20th century. His seminal work, The New Class, argued that ruling Communist parties did not represent the interests of the working class but rather privileged party-state elites, and became a huge contribution to Western scholarship on the Communist nomenklatura. 172 | Talk 11:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, I realised you wanted pictures of the persons you mentioned, I was just commenting on how prominent each person appears to be in the article in terms of text. There's no point in adding such pictures if none of their criticisms are discussed in the text. Solzhenistyn is not currently. --Knucmo2 13:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Solzhenistyn is not? I didn't know that. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. The article over-represents libertarian writings (given the POV of the main author) while under-representing works that resonated far more in the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. At any rate, Solzhenistyn was just an example. I still think that the article should feature pictures of anti-communist political theorists and politicians, if it is to feature pictures. 172 | Talk 09:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 172, right now I don't have time to involve myself in another POV article. -- Vision Thing -- 16:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Makhno

"The anarchist Nestor Makhno led an insurrection against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War." - This is inaccurate. Makhno let the anarchist anti-White forces in the Ukraine and fought on the same side as the Bolsheviks. It was after his forces' victory against the Whites that the Red Army sought to seize control of the Ukraine and the Makhnovists were attacked by the Reds. This is not the same as an "insurrection". [[12]] Donnacha 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wondeful just Wonderful!

Finally this page has been cleaned up! Its just great, this article is finally making sense, it is actually critising communism and not being used as a giant arguement on the theory of communism! La la la la la its just wonderful!

[edit] Two criticisms pages

A lot of work needs to be done on the relationship between this page and the Criticisms of communist states page. I think there is a clear need for both pages, but not if half the material is the same in both! BobFromBrockley 12:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)