Talk:Communist state/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

mess of wikipedia communism articles

guys, seriously. there are three articles on communism , the communisty party, communist state, and communism.

what you seriously need is a 'history of communism' article, which all three of these articles try to mishmash together in some god awful POV mess. then you need to figure out that 'communism' 'communist state' and 'communist party' are .. what? different things? or the same? and the articles overlap so much, it is simply ridiculous.

I've addressed a solution at Talk:Communist Ideologies. For more examples of the baffling array of Communist-related pages, see the communist template I made a while ago. There are actually links to lists of links.

...actually that amuses me slightly, to tell you the truth...

--Oceanhahn 03:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Soviet culture

Regarding this edit and comment by User:172 deleting a paragraph with links to Soviet culture and Soviet popular culture [1]. The article Communist state was merged with the article Marxist-Leninist government on April 11, 2004 by User:Mikkalai, see [2]. Thus the article after the merger properly contains information regarding both the formal governmental structure of the Communist state but also the practical consequences of Marxist-Leninist rule. Thus the reason given for deleting the paragraph is inappropriate as it is not "off-topic". Fred Bauder 14:07, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

This is patently absurd. It would be equally off topic to make observations about, say, Swazi culture in the article on constitutional monarchy by virtue of the fact that the Kingdom of Swaziland is nominally a constitutional monarchy. 172 14:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The article after its merger with the article Marxist-Leninist government contains the following language:

"This article includes both an exposition of the formal and semi-formal mechanisms of government and constitutional workings in communist countries and a more general discussion of the practical consequences of communist rule." Fred Bauder 15:30, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Influence of american culture is not unique to communist states. The whole world complains the american cultural aggression. Besides, the whole history of Russia is full of crazes with western culture: first it was German, then it was French (french was "first language" for elite in some historical periods). You say jeans craze. What about Beatles craze? Because of communism as well? Give us a break!

Soviet popular culture just was. For our purposes the idea is to describe it, not to prove anything by doing so. Fred Bauder 16:15, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

As for conformism, no country forces conformism unto you more than the USA, unless you have guts or money. But people with guts and/or money did pretty well in the USSR as well. Mikkalai 16:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That information perhaps belongs in an article on the US. The guts and money thing is true enough but would need explaining in any article on Soviet culture. Fred Bauder 16:15, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

To describe the Soviet culture, you better start a separate article, for a serious discussion. Otherwise occasional remarks in articles on other albeit related topics contribute to nothing more than to something similar by depth of analysis to "bear and balalaika" image. For example, why confomism? And is conformism proper enough term to describe life under a dictatorship, where confomism was a matter of survival for the majority? I hope you agree this article is not the place to go these and other issued in depth without exsessive bloating and diverging from the main topic. On the other hand, IMO no one will object to include here a summary from a serious article (say, Soviet culture), where one may find answer on possibly arising suspicions, e.g., in over-simplification. How about this "all eggs in one basket" thingy?Mikkalai 17:49, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Starting separate articles is the idea. The paragraph I put in this article were just brief introductions and links to those. During the 1960s through the 1980s there was a great deal of interest in the West in Soviet culture and Soviet popular culture and a number of books were written about it. For example, the book by Hedrick Smith, a New York Times corresponent who was posted in Moscow, The Russians, Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1975, hardcover, 527 pages, ISBN 0812905210. On page 105 the author makes the following generalization, "In their authoritarian environment, from childhood onward Russians acquire an acute sense of place and propriety, of what is accepted and what is not, of what they can get away with and what they had better not attempt. And they conform to their surroundings, playing the roles that are expected of them. With a kind of deliberate schizophrenia, they divide their existance into their public lives and their private lives, and distinquish between "official" relationships and personal relationships. This happens anywhere to some degree, of course, but Russians make this division more sharply than others because of political pressures for conformity. So they adopt two very different codes of behavior for their two lives - in one, they are taciturn, hypocritical, careful, cagey, passive; in the other, they are voluble, honest, direct, open, passionate. In one, thoughts and feelings are held in check. ("Our public life is a living lie," commented an experimental physicist) In the other, emotions flow warmly, without moderation." That is just one Western observer. For our purposes how would you briefly summarize such an observation? I had very little contact with Soviet citizens, but I remember some very distinctive behavior from the one group of traveling Soviets I did encounter. "taciturn, hypocritical, careful, cagey, passive" described them very well. (members of a Soviet orchestra). Fred Bauder 18:49, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

The objections to the paragraph that you want added have nothing to do with the validity of any of the things articulated in that paragraph. Of course there was a great deal of interest in the West in Soviet culture in the 1980s. (BTW, I've actually written more content on Wikipedia about this than you have.) The objection pertains to the placement of the paragraph. Once again, this would be equally off topic to make observations about Swazi culture in the 1980s in the constitutional monarchy article by virtue of the fact that the Kingdom of Swaziland is nominally a constitutional monarchy.

By virtue of the title, this is still an article about a political science definition (like republic, confederation, monarchy, constitutional monarchy, etc.). Thus, the this article is still not a grab-bag of anything anyone can write about any country that has been under a Communist Party-led regime. 172 02:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Except this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary and as noted above the two articles which previously existed have been merged. Unless you have more, that is some reason which serves an encyclopedic purpose I will restore the paragraph. Fred Bauder 11:40, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

The merger that you mention is completely inconsequential. This is still an article about a Communist state (a constitutional structure in which the state and the Communist Party are embedded in each other), not an article about the history of the Soviet Union (where the paragraph can be reasonably be placed, incidentally). Jtdirl and I stopped you from adding irrelevant, POV content to this article last year, and I will do so again this year. 172 12:04, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed pieces

I commented out the following pieces that fell out of context or . If someone cares, may resore it properly. Mikkalai 15:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(!-- ?which term? The term is also used to refer to historical instances of totalitarian socialism (as distinct from democratic socialism). --

(!-- There are various kinds of communism or socialism; some kinds of communism are varieties of ideology, while others are terms for practices or styles of governance.

Marxism holds--among other things--that human history has had and will have a developmental structure, alternating between slow development of technology/economy (and the according philosophy/religion) and a rapidly changing short period of technology/economy. --)

The whole article is a masterpiece of a writing in communist ideology: chaotic, repetitive, lacking overall logic and thus difucult to argue with. Mikkalai 15:19, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Leninism

One of the innovations Lenin introduced into Marxism was the notion of the vanguard party taking the lead, analyzing working class interests, voicing them effectively and on the behalf of the working class, seizing power. While these conclusions are arguably implicit in Marxism they were never part of the thought of Marx, or Engels. Fred Bauder 15:02, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

I second that. "M-L" is more precise in context of actual states or governments. Mikkalai 18:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reorganization

I'm trying to reorganize the entire lot of communism and related pages, with some others, into some series that makes a little more sense. This is one of the pages we've cited for editing. Details are available at Talk:Communism and Talk:Communist Ideology. This reorganization is still in a hypothetical stage, so no reorganization is likely to take place in the near future. I'd appreciate input from anyone who'd like to participate in a constructive way. -- Oceanhahn 22:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Apologists"

Referring to "apologists" for so-called communist states is inappropriate. The word has pejorative connotations. I have replaced this change with something more neutral.

As Oceanhahn mentioned, these pages are in the process of reorganisation. The section on deaths allegedly caused by socialist governments will be greatly expanded so that both sides of this issue can be presented adequately. Shorne 17:21, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many scholars who exhibit bias toward Communism cannot fairly be described as Communists, certainly they are not Party members, apologists is a much more neutral term, see historical revisionism, particularly the book In Denial, ISBN 1893554724 Fred Bauder 18:12, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Apologists is technically accurate, but do you not agree that it is taken (outside the context of philosophy or some other technical domain) as a pejorative term? I don't mind your inclusion of left-leaning scholars; it's your choice of word that seems to violate NPOV.

For the reason that you cite, I am careful to write communists with a lower-case c for adherents to the ideology. Communists with a capital C should be reserved for members of a specific ruling party only—one whose name is some near variant on "Communist Party". Saying that Marx was a Communist is as ridiculous as saying that Bush is a Capitalist. Shorne 20:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is hard for me to describe those who deny various well established facts about the history of Marxism-Leninism in neutral terms. I tend to ascribe intent to deceive to them, but a more commonsense view is that they either lack information or don't trust information which is available or else believe information which I would discount. Apologetics has part of its bad odor from the Catholic church. According to Page 2 of In Denial scholars of Communist history are divided into "traditionalists" who see communism as "profoundly antidemocratic in theory and practice" and who in the American context saw the American government as legitimate and saw Communists as being subordinate to a foreign power and the "revisionist" school which takes "a benign view of communism arguing that Marxism-Leninism embodied the most idealist dreams of mankind and that American Communists were among the most heroic fighters for soical justice in the nation's history. Revisionists saw American democracy as a fraud camouflaging capitalist oppression and aggressive imperialism." I think "left-leaning scholars" describes them well enough; "revisionist" is probably best reserved for Khrushchev and later Soviet reformers. As to capitalization, I use it to refer to an actual organization whether in power or not. Fred Bauder 22:15, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

That Marxism-Leninism is a pseudoscience is a well-established fact? Come on. There isn't even agreement on the definition of science.

If you can't describe things in neutral terms, you have no business writing on Wikipedia. A book entitled In Denial that categorises "scholars of Communist history" as either wise anticommunists or revisionist dupes can hardly be considered objective. Kindly read the policy on neutrality before writing anything else. Shorne 22:32, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a problem we share. I will do my best; you do yours. Fred Bauder 11:40, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want a personal exchange of the sort that your reply seems intended to provoke, but I do wish to support your rolling back of the opinionated, inaccurate, and generally sloppy comments that some anonymous user submitted today. Good decision. Shorne 18:01, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The adjectives you use are inapplicable to the essay just reverted: "hypothetical" is the word; the removed piece didn't refer to a single fact: only deductions (from unknown premices). Mikkalai 19:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The claim of 2 billion people in China is one example of a factual inaccuracy. Although this was later converted to 1.2 billion, the general effect was one of intellectual sloppiness. Other examples of pseudo-facts were the ridiculous claims that communism is at heart a food-distribution system (or whatever it was that was said; I've lost track of that tangle of confused musings).

I'll accept "hypothetical" in the place of "opinionated". In any case, we seem to agree that that text was not appropriate for this article. Shorne 20:25, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Recent move

Please don't do this to articles with long history without reading talk archives and without discussion at least two weeks long. Mikkalai 07:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Death toll

It is estimated by critics of Marxism-Leninism that deaths during the 20th century due to Communist revolutions, repression, induced famines, and failed social and economic experimentation number about 100 million in addition to tens of millions of man-years spent in the concentration camps of the gulag and laogai.

I am dismayed and indignant that Shorne removed the part above. The sentence above is NPOV. It says that critics of Marxism-Leninism claim that comunnist rule is responsible for death of millions of people. And this is true, they claim so. The sentence does not allege that the estimate is necessarily correct, this is why it is NPOV. Anyway, it is evident that communists intentionally killed a huge amount of people, and that the communist economical system lead to horrible (and well documented) situations, when millions of people died out of hunger near public granaries full of grain, just because the central plan was based on false assumptions. To try to hide that truth is deeply immoral. It increases the likelihood that a similar situation will happen in the future, because we will not pay attention to that horrible experience. And to try to hide the truth, to remove correct information and to accuse it of being "dishonest" for no specified reason is a disgrace for a Wikipedian. I would like to express my deep disapproval for that kind of lack of respect for human life, for the truth and for other Wikipedians. Boraczek 10:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This phrase, "when millions of people died out of hunger near public granaries full of grain" is not quite true. What happened is that the authorities took so much grain from the countryside (which they felt was holding out on them) and shipped it to the cities that people in the countryside were plunged into a general famine. Fred Bauder 11:25, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I could not agree more with this: "To try to hide that truth is deeply immoral. It increases the likelihood that a similar situation will happen in the future, because we will not pay attention to that horrible experience. And to try to hide the truth, to remove correct information and to accuse it for being "dishonest" for no specified reason is a disgrace for a Wikipedian." That is what make the struggle to make accurate information available worthwhile. Fred Bauder 11:25, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

And Shorn, please read what he said about NPOV, he understands it, that is why I support both critical and apologetic statements, if they are properly attributed. Fred Bauder 11:25, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have already expressed my objections to the use of the absurd accusation of "100 million" deaths from "communism" on other pages, and I must admit that I'm becoming tired of going through the issues over and over again. Here is a summary.

The claim of "100 million" deaths is an absurd lie cooked up in a single source, Black Book of Communism. Two of the authors of that book have since distanced themselves from the work, claiming that Stéphane Courtois, one of their co-authors, had been infatuated with puffing up the death toll and that he had deliberately inflated the numbers in a quest to reach the big nine-figure goal (which he didn't even do: he got only to 85 million but still claimed 100 million). Courtois has also come under attack for the absurd claim of "only" 25 million deaths caused by the Nazis and that Nazism is therefore "better" than communism. Is he a Holocaust denier? More than 20 million were killed (yes, killed; they didn't die of starvation) in the Soviet Union alone by the invading German army during World War II.

No one who looks seriously at the book will say that it is anything but crude propaganda. Fred Bauder posted elsewhere (on which page, Fred?) several links to articles that refute it more easily than I can, since I don't have a copy to hand. The book has also been roundly criticised in such mainstream publications as the French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique. (Here's a link for those who read French: [3].)

The links I posted were to Stalinist and Trotskyist sites, the Stalinist site takes a somewhat different viewpoint from the two Trotskyist sites. They make some points, but their POV vitiates any attack on the information as such. Fred Bauder 21:48, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

That objection is unacceptable. Let the points stand or fall on their own merits. Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now, on with the notion that the claim in this article "is NPOV". It is anything but. Although it is a fact that someone somewhere has accused socialist states of collectively causing "100 million" deaths, mere verisimilitude does not imply NPOV. You are favouring a high estimate over a low one. In addition, need I point out that there is no reference to the "estimate"? Furthermore, "critics of Marxism-Leninism" implies much more general agreement on this absurd "100 million" lie than in fact exists. "Concentration camps" is also POV. Shall I go on?

I guess you would prefer "reform through labor" camp? Fred Bauder 21:48, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Or "prisons". Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll only add that in some of these camps (working in mines) the ratio of mortality amounted to 50%. Boraczek 22:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reference? Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The death rate of those who worked in the uranium mines of Kolyma was 100%. Fred Bauder 01:49, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

The death rate of the schoolchildren buried alive by the coal mine at Aberfan, Wales, was almost 100%. Evidently the invisible hand of the market decided to give the coal tip a push. Shorne 01:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Even if the "100 million" had any basis in reality, it would be a distortion without an explanation—and without a standard of comparison. If even more people would have died under the ancien régime, for example, that death toll would actually be a feather in communism's cap. What are the facts? Don't look to the Black Book of Communism for any answers. Certainly don't look to it for information on lives saved or prolonged by socialism; that would get in the way of the monochromatic picture being painted. China, for example, doubled its people's life expectancy in 27 years under Mao. Count that as, oh, a quarter of a life saved per person, just to underestimate the gain. For a population of 600 million, that's 150 million lives saved—a number that easily offsets all the "100 million" deaths that Courtois & Cie cooked up.

You say, "If even more people would have died under the ancien régime, for example, that death toll would actually be a feather in communism's cap. What are the facts?" The facts are that a few thousand prisoners were executed during the nineteenth century by the Czarist government. What would have happened if the the Bolshevik coup had failed is unknowable. Fred Bauder 21:48, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges. You don't hold the czarist government responsible for anything but executions; you hold the Stalinist government responsible for far more. Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW Demographical statistics show that as far as life expectance is concerned, communist European countries were considerably less friendly than European capitalist countries. For example (and this is only one example out of many), the life expectance in communist Poland in 1960s decreased, which was something unique in the whole world. Boraczek 22:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reference? Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also don't expect any information about deaths under capitalism. UNICEF reports that 40 thousand children in today's capitalist world die every day of malnutrition. That's almost 15 million per year, or 100 million in seven years, done to death by capitalism. Already the "100 million" dishonestly blamed on communism are entirely offset by this one factor alone—every seven years. Add in adult deaths from malnutrition and all deaths from other capitalist causes (such as war), and the number vastly exceeds even the wildest accusations of your "critics of Marxism-Leninism". Funny, you won't find a word about this on the page capitalism (although I'm going to see to correcting that).

Your undocumented claims about peasants' starving next to granaries suggest a low degree of knowledge of the subject. Such claims could not mean anything without at least a mention of the time and place (country, at a minimum) of the alleged dying next to granaries. In fact, you have it exactly the wrong way around. People in many capitalist countries starve to death next to supplies of grain, fruit, fish, and other foods destined for the North, in many cases to be rendered into cat food so that Fluffy in London will better than Felipe in Lima. And "failed social and economic experimentation" also reflects a heavy bias. Certainly the entire period cannot be summed up as one great big unmitigated failure. The Soviet Union did not become a superpower by failing at everything.

Generalities about "repression", "induced famines", and the like are simply unacceptable in an article with any pretence of fairness and accuracy. Prove to me that any "communists" ever induced a famine. How would they even go about it? By spreading exotic plant and animal diseases over farms, as the CIA has done in Cuba? As for tens of millions of man-years spent in prison, shall we do the calculation for the United States, which has for many decades had by far the world's highest rate of imprisonment?

What is disrespectful of human life is to treat whole populations as pawns in a propaganda game. The "100 million" become a mass of faceless numbers to hurl at people who are trying to create something better than the status quo. Wikipedia is not the place for ideological battles. The aim is neutral, accurate, fair, useful reporting of facts, and propaganda gets in the way of that.

I stand by my removal of this "100 million" lie and am prepared to defend my decision before a panel of arbitrators. Shorne 18:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne how can you say the deaths of forty thousand children a day is responsible because of capitalism? I think thats an off assumption. It isnt the United States fault that kids in Ethiopia are dieing of malnutrition or Russia's fault for the poor living conditions in Mozambique.

When you finally get to the arbitration committee, no one is going to be asking you to prove or disprove content of articles. What will be looked at is whether you are willing to produce evidence for your edits, which you don't, and whether you insist on deleting material for which references have been provided, which you do. Fred Bauder 02:00, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

I demand proof of both charges or, failing that, an apology and a retraction. Shorne 09:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "deleting what you don't agree with" but rather "editing and allowing all reasonable opinions to be expressed".
If you want to question the number of 100 million deaths, please add a proper note in the article instead of deleting the information.
There is evidence to prove that Communist exterminated some categories of people. In fact, some of my grandfather's friends were killed by communists just because they belonged to the intelligentsia stratum. So these are not facts taken from books, this is what happened here and you can meet people who still remember that. There is evidence that famine was caused only by shortcomings of the communist economic system. There is some evidence (though not decisive) that Stalin induced famine in Ukraine (ordering to confiscate food) in order to weaken that mutinous province. If you ignore that evidence, then what you do is commmunist propaganda rather than scientific activity.
What we are talking about are deaths caused by concious decisions made by communists. When a communist official orders to confiscate food from people and leaves them nothing to eat, so they starve to death, you can't say that this is a natural death.
As for people dying near full granaries, I referred to China 1958-1960. There are data which show that the harvest of 1958 was larger than ever. Anyway, in the next two years, millions of people died out of hunger. It was the greatest famine ever. And the granaries were full of grain! But the communist system didn't let to distribute the grain. No famine of that size ever happened in the pre-communist times, even if the harvest was much worse. I know what you will say - you will just deny the fact.
Comparing the US prisons to the Soviet concentration camps is like comparing a pinch in cheek to burning a man alive. This is just unbelievable.
Quote: all deaths from other capitalist causes (such as war). As if war was not known to communist states. In fact, one can claim that communist states were more agressive than capitalist ones in the 20th century.
Your remarks on capitalism, nazism etc. have little or no bearing on the question at hand and reveal your communist zeal, which makes you extremely biased.
What you are doing in Wikipedia is promoting an extremely distorted and propagandist version of history.

Boraczek 20:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No one who looks seriously at the book will say that it is anything but crude propaganda. Wrong. It is the truth that some communists try to hide. Boraczek 20:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I wasted my time on you. Obviously there can be no discussion. Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It depends on you. I'm always open to discussion, but not to indoctrination. Boraczek 23:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The nice round number 100,000,000 casues protest merely by its zeroes; it just calls for suspicion of sensationalism. Besides, putting a lump number is anti-scientific at least and iditic at most. I remember a mockery of a Polish cartoonist Zbigniew Lengren on this kind of various "tolls". In one of his bios he wrote a table, kind of (I don't remember exactly):

Age:      35
Kids:      3
Wife:      1
Dog:       1
Cartoons 237
____
Total:   269

The "100 millon" looks just like the 269 for me. Mikkalai 19:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All what you wrote must be covered somewhere in wikipedia and referred from there. Otherwise this nice number is rightfully considered as nothing but propaganda, and definitely is not "information". 100,000,000... Why not 150,000,000? Mikkalai 20:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why not just say "man is his worst enemies and death toll due to actions of a man is 3000,000,0000"? Will it present a meaningful picture? Mikkalai 20:29, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Mikkalai. I got quite a chuckle out of these lines and your illustration. Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you want to question the number of deaths, please add a note in the article, instead of removing the estimate. Boraczek 20:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Fred for the added section. I don't question numbers for particular countries, but now it is clearly seen that the authors of the Black Book were digging out all possible and impossible ways to collect the craved 100M. Pure propaganda, discrediting the valid cause. Mikkalai 21:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Right. Plenty of anticommunists with self-respect and integrity have distanced themselves from the book, precisely because it discredits their position. It seems to be the ill-informed, the naïve, and the lazy who embrace this sort of hatchet job. Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems Shorne decided to show what we are talking about and write a short piece of propaganda. A very well written example! Boraczek 23:42, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the new section, Fred Bauder! :-) Unlike Mikkalai, I am convinced that communists are responsible for all or most of the listed deaths. And calling the data "pure propaganda" is just trying to deny the truth. But anyone can get his own opinion and this is what NPOV is about. Boraczek 21:40, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't express myself correctly. The "propaganda" I have in mind is summing China and Africa to make a nice number. Obvously, 90 mln. was not enough. I am pretty sure if Africa wouldn't add to the nice 100, the authors would find a couple of Communists in Australia. Also, the issue shows the diligency of some authors here. The article is about "communist state", an incorrect, but well-defined notion ("well-defined" means that all opponents know what it is), at the same time some of us stick here a sensational number without verifying its applicability. That's why I insisted on detailed tally. I don't care how many chinamen were killed and why. But now at least there are a well-defined numbers to argue. The "total" of 100M makes you only to look with awe at it, but impossible to argue. After all, a man cannot know everything; who knows, may be these cannibals in Zanzibar killed an extra ten million or two. But the number about a particular state can be reasonably verified. Mikkalai 01:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for having misunderstood what you said. I am glad that we came to terms and I am glad that you really seek the truth. Boraczek 07:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV is not about "opinions" at all. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Shorne 23:08, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Black Book of Communism is simply a compodium of generally accepted facts about the problems of communism. It makes no attempt to catalog successes or to explain the problems of capitalism or how socialism might resolve those problems. Fred Bauder 23:15, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Facts? Oh, Fred! You surprise me! You seemed more sophisticated than that.

Shorne, you also start to insult other Wikipedians. Please calm down and stop doing it. Boraczek 00:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, my dispute is entirely on what it does claim, not on what it doesn't. Please reread the long discussion above that I wasted my time writing today. Shorne 23:59, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The (NPOV) policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)

Shorne, in my humble opinion, you clearly violate the NPOV rules. You do not let another opinions be present. You just decide what is "acceptable" or "unacceptable" (as you write in "summaries") and delete what you don't agree with instead of discussing it or editing the article so as to make it represent different sides of a dispute. Please stop behaving like this. I respect your opinion, but please don't impose it on others. If you don't stop violating NPOV, I'll opt for starting an appropriate procedure. Boraczek 00:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're most welcome to try another procedure. I'm confident that fair-minded people will agree that I'm being as fair as possible, representing all sides of disputes as well as I can. It is you who are insisting on pushing a POV. Again, NPOV is not about "opinions"; there shouldn't be any opinions in any article. If you still don't understand this, please go and discuss it with the appropriate people. I'm afraid I really don't have any more time to spend in one-on-one discussions with you on this subject. Shorne 00:13, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unacceptable. See the talk page. We would need to discuss each of these claims one by one. Simply quoting them is not enough; nor does it give any basis for discussing their validity.

In my humble opinion, this and your previous statements suggest that you don't understand what NPOV and discussion pages are about. I think a discussion page is not a place where we should try to find the only undeniable truth. This is a task for historians and other scientists, not for Wikipedians. The discussion page is a place for discussing the article. And the article should present all conflicting views without asserting them (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). So we should not discuss if the data contained in Black Book of Communism are correct or not. This is a task for historians. We should mention that Black Book of Communism, which is a reliable source, despite your slanders, give these data. And we can write that many writers (actually, many left-wing writers) don't agree with them. Doing this, we give everyone a chance to decide which view appeals to them more. Wikipedia is for information, not for indoctrination. Please think it over. Boraczek 00:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not NPOV. It's relevance

"Communist state" is a constitutional definition referring to a type of government in which a Marxist-Leninist party and the state are embedded in each other. The coverage must be comparable to that of the articles dealing with government types (e.g., constitutional monarchy, monarchy, confederation, republic, federal republic). The section on the "crimes of Communism" is thus just as out of place as placing an extended analysis of the human rights records of Swaziland and Nepal in the article about constitutional monarchy noting that they are both nominally constitutional monarchies. This section must be removed entirely; and the issue is not NPOV but rather relevance. (It would be appropriate in the article about Communism but not this article.) I'd remove it myself, but I didn't want to get caught in the Shone/VeryVerily crossfire. 172 01:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are right. But I'm afraid the NPOV dispute will return soon, because I doubt if Shorne is willing to change his behavior. Boraczek 03:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out what should have been clear to all. I would also suggest that "Crimes of communism" is out of place in communism unless a section "Crimes of capitalism" is added to capitalism.

There isn't really any crossfire. VeryVerily merely reverts what he doesn't like, over and over again, without even having the courage (let alone the decency) to discuss the dispute. Boraczek is doing the same thing in a number of articles. Shorne 01:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I do revert some changes made by Shorne. This is because he sometimes introduces a heavily biased statements in articles. In some cases, it could be even called using Wikipedia as a medium of communist propaganda. And I never refuse to discuss a matter, as you can see in this discussion page for example. Boraczek 03:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was I believe Fred Bauder who made the editorial decision to expand the information into its own section as opposed to the one sentence (which was also the subject of a revert war, in which I am only one among many warriors). I have no set opinion on the level of coverage, only the necessity of covering the "downside" of communist states in some manner. Near everything writen by Shorne is hugely biased and wholly out of compliance with policy, and Gzornenplatz goes on the attack wherever I am found, so their involvement predictably brought escalation. Very Verily 06:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Coverage on the "downside" of communism is inappropriate in this article. (It is in Communism, where there is such a section.) Including it in this article, about a government type/political science term, makes as little sense as including, say, a section on the "crimes in monarchies" in the monarchy article. If you are going to continue to revert Shone, at least you can take out that section and look into salvaging some of that content in the communism article. Relevance must come before political posturing and personality conflicts on Wikipedia. 172 07:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd think if there were a small number of monarchies in the last hundred years, and they had consistently exhibited certain behaviors, this would merit some coverage. Again, I'm not excited about having the section, and thought the previous coverage was adequate. I am however more inclined to go with Fred Brauder's version than Shorne's, to leave it to the former (and anyone else with an opinion on the matter) how to choose the form of the information, and to help the former against the latter's whitewashing tendencies. Based on the page history, I'm not alone in this. Very Verily 07:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whether about monarchies or Communist regimes, the coverage belongs in the articles on the histories of the relevant nations. Please compare coverage in this article to that of other encyclopedias. 172 07:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, 172. As to your other comment, I have said here and elsewhere that the discussion is important and does belong in communism or a similar article, where there can be space to treat it adequately. I also feel that the material drafted by Fred Brauder does not qualify as information as it stands, even if disconnected from its POV. This will be a contentious subject requiring discussion and compromise. The proclivity of certain parties here to stage reversion wars bodes ill for the success of the endeavour. Shorne 08:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you have specific complaints, VeryVerily, express them on the appropriate talk page or in another appropriate forum. Your generalities cannot be taken seriously. Shorne 06:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reverts

Knock off the revert dueling, or this page will be protected from editing. Please make a serious effort to discuss differences here on the talk page. -- Infrogmation 06:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I was writing up a compromise when I suddenly found I couldn't edit. Oh well. Very Verily 06:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you seriously think you can work up a viable compromise version, you can either post the relevent section here in talk or create a temporary subpage at, say, "Communist state/Temp". -- Infrogmation 06:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it was basically going to take the form of a dispute notice on the section in question, with a reference to the talk page. It doesn't matter now. Very Verily 07:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention in what is obviously an impossible situation. If you have any energy left for this sort of jejune behaviour, please see VeryVerily's command performances at Henry Kissinger, United States, and any of a dozen other articles at which he is doing the very same thing, true to form. His claims of "compromise" are transparent when he doesn't even discuss matters at the talk page when asked to do so. Shorne 06:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not the only one opposing your whitewashing and POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Look for instance at the page history of this article. Very Verily 07:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is you who are the whitewasher and POV-pusher. Look at this talk page. I can talk rationally with almost everyone. It is only you who are utterly impossible to deal with. Don't deny it. Everyone is onto your game. Shorne 08:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that Shorne doesn't seem to allow any compromise. He just presents his extremist views and puts them in articles. He discards all opinions other than his own and all data not supporting his views (even the generally known and obvious facts) as "lies and propaganda" and remove them from articles without any discussion or adding comments. Then he reverts changes made by other Wikipedians. His strategy is to make a reversion and then try to engage opponents in endless and ineffective discussions, so as to let his version stay. It is enough to look at the articles he edited - I guess he was involved in an edit war in each of them. I hope I am wrong, but I'm afraid the problem will persist until Shorne is banned, because I can't see any respect for other points of views and NPOV on his side. Boraczek 08:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What the hell have you been doing all day long, if not reverting changes and insisting on your POV? I have no use for you and VeryVerily. You're both completely impossible. Shorne 08:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the way Shorne discusses a matter: The text cannot stay. End of argument. (quote from Talk: People's Republic of China) Boraczek 08:42, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's how Shorne is when Shorne has to simplify things for people who cannot or will not listen. Shorne is infinitely more amenable to discussion with people who will meet Shorne halfway. Shorne 09:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If anyone should be "banned", Boraczek, that would be you. You insert statements which basically amount to "communism is evil evil evil evil", and then claim that whoever tries to moderate or remove them is inserting POV! -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll answer in the Talk:Communism page. Boraczek 10:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed corrections

"Early forms" section

Bolshevism and Menshevism were also two early forms of communism-in-practice, advocated by Russian communists in the late 19th and early 20th century; the Mensheviks favored peaceful change, while Bolsheviks called for, and eventually organised, a revolution, putting power in the hands of the Soviets of workers and peasants.

This is an obvious blunder. Bolshevism and menshevism were wings of RSDLP, not "communism in practice". Not to say that it was not bolsheviks who "organised" the first (February) revolution. And both wings were in favor of Soviets. The ignoramus phrase must be deleted ASAP. Mikkalai 07:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I support the deletion. Shorne 08:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

100 mln

The number is out of the blue. Even the quotation from the more than generous Black Book gives 90 mln for what is known as "communist states" Mikkalai 07:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is there hope of working out an agreeable text that both captures the negative aspects of communist states and also is solid in terms of its factual claims? Very Verily 07:38, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Black Book can be used at all in any text on the subject of the alleged crimes. Besides the fact that it is so crass and dishonest as to be a disgrace to its own cause, a fact that Mikkalai and I pointed out yesterday, its claims of far-flung disasters would have to be addressed one by one. That would take up far too much space for an enterprise of dubious merit (comparable to a 1000-page debate on the existence of Santa Claus), and it would be decidedly non-encyclopædic in nature.

I recommend that this discussion be moved immediately to Talk:communism. Shorne 08:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In your opinion the Black Book is unreliable. In my opinion (and in opinion of most historians, I guess), it is reliable. Let the both opinions be present in the article. Boraczek 08:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, do you? The book is not unreliable, but it is blatantly anti-communist propaganda and POV. That is why we oppose you quoting from it as if it presented pure facts. In reality, most historians argue that the numbers in the Black Book are grossly exaggerated (see [4]), and, in any case, it is a serious matter of dispute whether you can blame "communism" for what a handful of communists did. (just 3 people - Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot - account for 99% of the "crimes of communism"). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:05, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, so why don't we present the dispute instead of presenting one side's point of view only? And the book in my opinion IS reliable, even if many left-wing people do not want to believe in what it contains, because it is too shocking for them. Let's mention that many historians think that the data are exaggerated. This is true. And it is true that the book says so. I'm trying to make a compromise, while you keep imposing your point of view. Boraczek 09:18, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you kindly listen for two seconds? Christ be damned! Talking with you is like talking with a brick wall! Shorne 09:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The allegations of the Black Book are shocking in the same way that a statement like "pigs can fly" would be shocking. We don't believe the Black Book for the same reason why we don't believe that Lenin was a little green alien from the planet Zog. Because it is absurd and contradicted by historical facts. This page lists the estimates of most historians regarding the death tolls of various 20th century events. Notice that the kind of numbers given in the Black Book are higher than even the most ridiculously high historical estimates. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. The estimates of the Black Book are: Soviet Union 20 mln, China 65 million. Let's have a look at other estimates. You already gave a link to a page that contains them. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, the total death toll is usually estimated at 20-25 mln and the highest estimate is 62 mln, so 20 mln is not a high estimate. As for China, 6 listed estimates are higher than the one given in the Black Book and the highest one is 80 mln. The estimate for China from the Black Book is relatively high in the stake of estimates, but still there are higher estimates. If we add the highest estimates, then the SU and communist China alone account for 142 million deaths. Boraczek 14:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:03, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I will join your request. Fred Bauder 12:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Shorne 12:08, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Opinions

It is not POV to include comments by critics. Unless you, Shorne, or anyone else can disprove that critics of Marxism-Leninism allege 100 million deaths, then I think the section as written can and should stay. Mackensen 00:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't deny that some liars and dupes go around claiming 100 million deaths. That's not the point. I've already discussed this matter fifteen or twenty times on this and other pages and am not going to waste my time discussing it again for people who can't or won't read. Shorne 01:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The highest estimate ever given by anti-communists was 92 million deaths. The "100 million" figure was obtained by rounding this number to make it sound more impressive. I do not believe we should endorse this absurd practice. I agree that we should mention that the highest estimates are around 90 million deaths - but then we should ALSO mention the lowest estimates. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By all means, but I object to the complete removal of the estimates made by critics. How about this phrasing:

"Regimes described as communist have, according to many Western observers, in practice been totalitarian and extremely abusive of human rights. It is estimated by critics of Marxism-Leninism that deaths during the 20th century due to Communist revolutions, induced famines, and failed social and economic experimentation number as high as 92 million in addition to tens of millions of man-years spent in the Gulags. Democratic movements that arose within a framework of communist theory, such as that instituted by Alexander Dubček in Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring, have been forcibly put down (see also Hungarian Uprising). Therefore communism is also used to refer to historical instances of totalitarian socialism, distinctly from democratic socialism or communism in theory." Mackensen 01:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No. First, "as high as 92 million" is (haven't I said this fifty times by now?) POV. It privileges a high (so as not to say outlandish and dishonest) estimate over a low one. It also privileges propaganda over facts.

Second, "totalitarian socialism" is POV. I've never heard this term used before, certainly not by Marxists.

Third, "totalitarian" is, depending on how you look at it, either factually wrong or POV. Shorne 01:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're missing the point. This is the term used by critics, so of course it's POV. Their POV. Which has been included, labeled as POV. To reinforce the point, the last sentence could read "Therefore communism is also used by critics to refer to historical instances of totalitarian socialism, distinctly from democratic socialism or communism in theory." Mackensen 01:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that your usage reifies "totalitarian socialism". Shorne 22:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Help me out then. The sentence is distinguishing between socialist states with totalitarian governments and socialist states with democratic governments, and from theoretical communism. Can you think of a better phrasing? Mackensen 23:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that "estimates" should be mentioned out of context. People are using them as a sort of ace up the sleeve, a way to slip in a sound bite, and that's not right. It's POV, to say the least. Again, I've already proposed an article, perhaps Economic systems and violence, that would address all these matters in a proper way—for capitalism as well as for socialism. Any takers? Shorne 01:23, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, provided that all sides are fairly represented. Mackensen 01:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Representing all sides has been my goal. Unfortunately for honesty, some right-wing propagandists keep standing in the way. Shorne 01:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You persistently mischaracterize disputes as right wing v left wing. I see most disputes with you as between objective reporting of facts, however unpleasant, which is essential to scientific socialism, with propagandistic efforts to suppress and distort information resulting in articles which a strong fantasy component. Fred Bauder 14:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I see them: I'm trying to discuss facts, you're trying to propagandise with your "100 million" deaths and other nonsense. Shorne 22:55, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "gentle Laotian people" comment strikes me as being stereotypical at worst, POV at best. It's not the sort of comment that belongs in a serious article. I think its best to avoid getting into the habit of generalising in this way and attributing a particular character to an entire culture whether it be "gentle Laotians", "humourless Germans", "drunken Irish" etc. AndyL 02:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here about the theory of state capitalism. According to followers of the theory it's not just China and Vietnam that are "State captalist" ie not just those "Communist states" that are more market oriented, but *all* the Soviet bloc states. The theory of state capitalism was used to describe the Soviet Union *under Stalin*! Others who use the theory (some Stalinists) use it to describe the Soviet bloc under Khruschev and Brezhnev but it's not a term used just to describe market oriented states so the use in this article is inaccurate. I think what people are trying to say is that China and Vietnam are considered "market socialist"AndyL 03:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say that it was only the overtly capitalist countries like China today that are state-capitalist. Elsewhere I have mentioned, for example, that Mao's government accused the Soviet bloc of state capitalism. And some Trotskyists said the same thing about the USSR under Stalin, although not very convincingly (no evidence of production for profit, for example). Again, as I said below (it seems that our messages crossed paths), I'd just say that China and Vietnam are outright capitalist, but that would be shouted down as POV. Shorne 03:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll say , "no evidence of production for profit"! but plenty of evidence for production at a loss. Fred Bauder 21:01, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Trotsky himself was quite clear though that the Soviet Union under Stalin was not capitalist in any way, shape or form. However, your criticisms of state capitalist theory applied to Stalin's USSR also applies to Khruschev and Brezhnev's USSR. AndyL 06:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

State capitalism

What's wrong with speaking of Cuba and all as state-capitalist? Yes, that term was originally applied to the USSR and its satellites, but doesn't it apply to Cuba, China, and the rest as well? (I'd rather just say that China and Vietnam, at least, are capitalist pure and simple, but that would be POV.) Shorne 03:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The context in which it was used was incorrect:

After the dismantlement of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in the early 1990s, all European communist party–run governments abandoned communism. However, China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam continue to be run by communist parties. In practice the economies of China and Vietnam are organized to a greater or lesser extent around the market. (Some Marxists outside these countries refer to this arrangement as state-capitalism.) North Korea is the last remaining communist state following the pattern set by the Stalinist Soviet Union.

The implication above is that some Marxists consider China and Vietnam to be state capitalist because they are "organized to a greater or lesser extent around the market" but Cuba and North Korea not to be. This is incorrect, those who believe in state capitalist theory see North Korea and other Stalinist states as state capitalist as well as China ie the theory of state capitalism has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not a system is organized around the market. Whoever wrote the paragraph above was using the term "state capitalism" when what I think they meant was "market socialism". State Capitalism does not mean "capitalist-like socialism" it rather refers to an analysis that even a system where the state has a monopoly on the means of production and where the internal market has been abolished remains capitalist, but a different form of capitalism, because the state still competes with capitalist states. According to the most widespread version of state capitalist theory the Soviet Union became state capitalist in 1930 or earlier. AndyL 04:25, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean about the way the article was edited: the context was altered as the words were moved around.

I don't agree with your last sentence, however. That may be a Trotskyist opinion, but I'm not convinced that it is more widespread than the position—formerly official in Albania and China—that the Soviet Union became state-capitalist in the late 1950s, a few years after Stalin's death. Anyway, that's not germane to the question of the phrasing of this article. I won't contest your change any further. Shorne 04:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Two main ideological groups hold the "state capitalist" analysis. The neo-Trotskyists of the International Socialist Tendency (ie those influenced by Tony Cliff) and their offshoots say the Soviet Union became state capitalist under Stalin and that the rest of the Soviet bloc, PRC etc were state capitalist from their inception - some anarchists who propound the theory would say the Soviet Union was state capitalist under Lenin (orthodox Trotskyists reject the state capitalist analysis entirely). Some anti-Revisionists/Stalinists hold that the Soviet Union became state capitalist under Khruschev as did the Soviet bloc (how isn't something they adequately explain IMHO). In any case, both groups would call the Soviet bloc state cap long before any sort of market experimentation was introduced which is my point as to why the way it was used in the article was wrong. Anyway, glad you see the point I'm trying to make. AndyL 17:30, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, the phrase "state capitalism" is used correctly in this sentence elsewhere in the article:

"Many have characterized the old Soviet command model as state socialism or state capitalism."AndyL 04:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maps

I'm unhappy with the map of communist countries. It's rather deceptive to list Ethiopia and Mozambique as having been communist. Even Angola doesn't really count: the MPLA never had enough control over the country to implement socialist policies. These and certain other countries should perhaps be shown in pale pink, if at all.

Another map that we might add would show the extent of communist rule today: one colour for the five self-styled socialist states, another for the ones with large areas under the control of communists insurrections (Nepal is the best example, with half or more of its territory now controlled by the Maoist revolutionaries), another for areas with elected communist governments (two or three states in India, for example). It might be hard to do a good job of this. What do people think? Shorne 04:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "elected communist governments" that still function under a multi-party system would be a bit tricky -- in cases for example communist parties have even been part of ruling coalitions. (South Africa for example, or AKEL in Cyprus)... But perhaps it *would* be interesting to show, even if hard to make a good job of it. I'm willing to make such a map within the week, but I'd be sorely lacking in data about the list of ruling communist coalitions and communist parties. Aid in this respect would be necessary...

As for the rest, eh African political history not my best subject by far. But didn't in all these cases the main govennment try to pursue a one-party communist-ideology in state governance? Even if unsuccessful at it? I think we may have to accept that these maps are mere approximations and can't show all detail and nuance. Aris Katsaris 08:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm no authority on African political history either, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Ethiopia was ever a socialist state. Throughout the 1980s and beyond, it was under one or another military régime. I'd like to hear the argument for calling Ethiopia in the 1980s a socialist state. The case for Angola is stronger but still dubious.

Thanks for offering to make a map. As you said, we need to assemble the data first. I'll make a preliminary list in the article during the coming days. Shorne 16:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I based the coloring of Ethiopia on the info provided by its article as well as the History of Ethiopia one. Perhaps you can ask at Talk:Ethiopia or Talk:History of Ethiopia for the sources. Aris Katsaris 18:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, the map is consistent with this article. I'm just wondering why someone added Ethiopia and certain other countries to the text. Shorne 19:54, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Marxist-Leninist governments in some countries can best be described as ephemeral. They were a sort of high-water mark, if you will, of world revolution... Seemed like a great flood, at the time.Fred Bauder 21:07, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Ethiopia was declared a "people's republic" in the late 1980s ("people's democratic republic" to be precise).AndyL 21:17, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Beyond the name, is there any substance to the claim that Ethiopia ever seriously pursued socialism? Shorne 21:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing my offer to make that map -- You've gone back to supporting Ruy Lopez in his vandalistic reversion of History of Modern Greece (you even remove the category Category:Greek history which if nothing else shows you two don't give a damn about improving the article). One might say that *that* subject has nothing to do with this one, but since my opinion is now that the lot of you are vandals that have formed a mob of communist solidarity in order to streamroll over everyone else, refusing to discuss even the slightest of changes, and since I think you lot should be banned from editing Wikipedia ever again, I'd not be willing to accept any data you'd provide me for the map in good faith, and I am too busy to crosscheck them piece by piece myself. So, no map or any other collaboration is possible under those conditions. Aris Katsaris 00:01, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to do anything. You have every right not to participate. Just don't complain later when the results are not to your liking. Your comments about "supporting Ruy Lopez in his vandalistic reversion" are wrong, but I've given up on explaining that to you; several previous attempts have not succeeded, and I am not trained in the sort of specialised communication that would be required with someone like you. Shorne 06:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The African states in the map are fine. In fact, the map misses out Somalia, which should be added in the same Salmon colour as the other states that became communist in the 60's and 70's. Despite personal opinions, those countries were:

(1) all ruled by a party claiming to follow a Marxist-Leninist path (2) all had the ruling communist or communist-professing party as being the sole legal party in the country (3) most adopted official titles/names in keeping with traditional communist state names of the time, like "People's Republic" or "People's Democratic Republic". Even Somalia was renamed the "Somali Democratic Republic" which initially wouldn't sound very communist until one looks at East Germany's official title of the "German Democratic Republic" and Afghanistan placing "the Democratic Republic" before its name after the communists took over.

In fact the map also misses out Grenada. It might also be informative to colour in Syria, Iraq and Libya in a different colour (perhaps light pink) to show that they were ruled by parties or individuals that either proclaimed their state "socialist" and/or adhered to "arab socialism". - Anonymous user 06:03, 14 Jan 2005

172's compromise

Shorne, this edit [5] removing the language, "North Korea is the last remaining communist state following the pattern set by the Stalinist Soviet Union." with the comment, "Appreciate 172's compromise. Removed comment about North Korea as "Stalinist"; it's not clear what that means or how it could be demonstrated." is not acceptable. People visit North Korea and report on what they see. People escape from North Korea and report on life there. But see Chapter 22, in The Black Book of Communism especially page 564, "100,000 have died in Party purges and...1.5 million...in concentration camps." No proof is ever enough for you? You're welcome to add properly attributed bit information about how wonderful it is there, but not to remove the reports of the victims. Fred Bauder 21:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

WHAT MAKES IT STALINIST? Do you think that Stalinism = party purges and concentration camps? Do you even know what Stalinism is, for crying out loud? Shorne 23:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by Stalinist. We had this debate at Talk:Korean Workers Party. I had originally described the party as an orthodox Stalinist party (or words to that effect) and it was pointed out that in fact the KWP and the Kim's have prioritized Juche over Marxism-Leninism and have deviated from Stalinism in various other ways. From a layperson's perspective they are Stalinist in that it is certainly authoritiarian, there's a personality cult etc but North Korea deviates from Stalinism in a number of ways. I think its fair to say the country is the closest communist state in existence today to the orthodox Stalinist model but we shouldn't say they are Stalinist full stop.(see the Juche article) In fact, North Korea blends Stalinism with aspects of Buddhism and Confucianism. AndyL 22:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, might be difficult to find an adequate phrase. Totalitarian, but none of you seem to like that. Fred Bauder 22:51, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I would use it personally (though it is POV) and as shorthand I do describe North Korea as Stalinist. Anyway, the formula we came up with in the Korean Workers Party article is to say:

"The party is widely viewed by foreigners as Stalinist and is the closest thing to a traditional Stalinist ruling party in the world today. However, the KWP claims to have its own distinct ideology (Juche) which it considers to be a further development of "Marxism-Leninism." AndyL 22:55, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what the view of "foreigners" (presumably meaning Westerners who couldn't find Korea on a map of the world to save their lives) has to do with anything. Do we say in United States "The country is widely viewed by foreigners as the Great Satan"?

If anyone has any facts about North Korea's government, I'd be pleased to see them. (In reality, very few people outside North Korea have much real information on the country.) Labels, however, are of no value. Shorne 23:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pre-marx term "communism"

Removed: It should be noted that the term "communism" and ideology has a history that predates Marx, however, closely associated with libertarian socialism (also known as anarchism, though that term has come to be associated with other political philosophies).

I seriously doubt in the correctness of the phrase. Direct references, please. I have recently repelled an attempt to assign Cabet as pretendent for "authorship", basing on vague secondary references. I took me two weeks of pain in the ass research to figure out that he didn't use this term (at least in written). Now the ball is on the other side. Since now on I will mercilessly remove similar claims without direct reference, or at least credible sources that make this direct claim to this end, rather than say something vague and indirect in passive voice. Mikkalai 02:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sentence removed has a factual basis, but I have no reference at hand. Fred Bauder 13:35, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Let's say "you believe the sentence has factual basis". Believe me or not, but I believe this, too. And I will be looking for confirmation. But "as is" the phrase is uninformative. I can readily believe that the adjective applied to things of Paris Commune were called "communist", but this is hardly what we heed here, correct? Mikkalai 16:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The sentence is pretty meaningless, particulrly the part in parentheses. What other "political philosophies" has the term anarchism become associated with? As for the main part of the sentence "anarchism" or "libertarian socialism" as a modern philosophy originated at about the same time as Marxism and co-existed in the First International. AndyL 17:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. When I wrote "I believe this, too", it was about the first part, before the "however". I'd also add that the "and ideology" words are meaningless and confusing as well. Concluding, it is quite possible that ther term "communism" was used before Marx to denote some kind of conscious ideology, differing from the usage in everyday, mundane, no-brainer senses, such as in reference to Paris Commune or to some communalist life, especially in translation from other languages. Such references would be extremely welcome to this article, since there is much confusion with words, especially since Marx's invention (is it his?) of the term "primitive communism". Mikkalai 20:54, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I actually ran across some information on this, turned out to be different from what I remembered, but look at: Communism#History_of_use_of_the_word_.22communism.22

So where's the dispute?

I come to this page for some editing work and find it protected. So I take a look over the Talk page to see if I can help solve the dispute. But, to my surprise, I find nothing new since the last time I've been here. So where exactly is the dispute? Why is the page protected? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page is protected because VeryVerily was vandalising it. You can ask to have it unprotected, but he'll just be right back to make trouble again. I recommend leaving it as it is until the arbitration committee finally bans VeryVerily or at least reins him in. Shorne 21:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems there were only minor controversial edits involved. And I am asking to have this article unprotected, since I want to work on it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We can try this. I'll unprotect the page. 172 23:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the page history can see Shorne is lying when he says "The page is protected because VeryVerily was vandalising it". (a) The dispute I had was "Ruy Lopez" changing "common speech" to "right-wing speech", a flagrantly inappropriate edit, as AndyL also pointed out. (b) That was not what led to the page protection; it was the move war, which I had no part in at all. Very Verily 00:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Communitarism?

I removed this as term for communalist societies. It is never used for that, in any of its definitions. Juan Ponderas 04:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Especially for those who are lazy to trace the links; from Communitarianism:

1) Philosophical Communitarianism <...snip...> emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals.

2) Ideological Communitarianism is an ideology that emphasises the rights of the majority to make decisions affecting the minority.

Looks like right from best communist annals. Marx himself would be happy undersign both. Mikkalai 07:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, Marx would probably not be very happy to undersign anything related to the Soviet Union and other 20th century "communist states"... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh? How is this related to the issue of disagreement between me and Juan Ponderas? Mikkalai 15:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which one are you implying to be communism? Can't argue until I know which. But here's a difference; communitarians are socially conseravtive, while communists are socially liberal. Communitarianism doesn't draw anything from Marxist philosophy; your just taking some broad statements that might apply to both. Juan Ponderas 00:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are not reading others' edits carefully. I didn't say that Communitarianism implies communism. Just the opposite. I wrote that these "precommunist" societies are not communist in modern understanding. Marx & Co. stuck the commie label onto them, while I am saying other labels are better applicable. Capish? Mikkalai 01:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It says this is a "Communist society". Have you ever seen anything associating communitarianism with communal living? Communitarianism in the first sense of the article is an unrelated political philosophy. In the second sense it is half-liberal (on economic issues) and half conservative (on social issues). Which of these relates to communal living? Juan Ponderas 02:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is "communal living"? And why communitarianism cannot be a philosophy of communal society? Just as Marx applied the word communism/socialism to societies that never heard these words, why "communitarianism" cannot be applied to them, to better describe what they actually were? Mikkalai 02:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why not invent another meaning of the word? For one thing, the word doesn't need more; it already has three, neither of which fits this. More importantly, perhaps, thee is no need; the word communalist already describes it. Language is better off precise. Juan Ponderas 03:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human rights crimes

For a discussion of the censorship in this article of the human rights crimes of the communist states, see communism.

Delisted

Removed from list:

Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma (one-party rule 1962-1988; Socialist Republic declared 1974) - Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP), a.k.a Party of the Socialist Program of Burma (PSPB)-only legal party 1974-1988

Unless the corresponding articles write something about communism, these states are out. Mikkalai 03:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why? Firstly there is no corresponding article, one hasn't been created yet. Secondly, give one good reason as to why under any definition, Burma was not a socialist state at the time? It was being ruled by a party proclaiming to be socialist (whether the party actually was truly socialist is a matter of philosophical thought rather than hard facts, just as it is for every other "communist state") and which was the only legal party. Any one-party state in which the party is "socialist" or "communist" was pretty much always defined as a communist state. By the standard you've set, half the states listed as defunct should be removed, whether they were communist or not, and what's the point in that? Shouldn't there be a comprehensive list so that people will learn about these states, maybe get interested and then actually contribute to or create articles about these states when they were under socialist rule?

It seems that 172 is of like mind to Mikkalai. Have either of you actually researched Burma before deleting the entry? A google search of "Socialist Burma" will even bring up an Encyclopaedia Britannica article (or the stub of one, if you don't subscribe) which deals with what the writers of the Encyclopaedia refer to as "the socialist takeover". see: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=52611 If Encyclopaedia Britannica acknowledges a "socialist Burma", then why the trouble here? Doesn't everyone wish for Wikipedia to become one of the most accurate and comprehensive encyclopaedias in the world? And how can that be achieved if it refuses to take for fact what older, well established (and heavily researched) printed encyclopaedias already have? Now what is strange is that the body of the article goes on to outline what is or is not a communist state and then when Burma drops into that definition, it is labelled as not being socialist/communist. After all "a communist state is a state ruled by a single political party which declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism." So Burma was ruled by a single political party from 1974 to 1988 which declared as its aim to try to lead Burma to true Socialism (in the most common sense of the word) and drew on marxist and buddhist influences (similar to China and its use of communism with a chinese face or values, or Khruschev's many roads to socialism). Then in the article we have "The term communist state originated from the fact that most of the states in question were or are ruled by parties that called themselves "Communist Party of [country]". Thus, they became known as Communist Party-ruled 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." So if there really is no such thing as a "communist state" and there only socialist states, then what is the problem with Burma? Also, was it not true that some "communist states" were ruled by parties that did not call themselves "communist parties" but had such titles as "people's revolutionary party", "workers' party", "social democratic and labour party", "socialist unity party", "labour party" and "revolutionary socialist party"? Would states ruled by these parties somehow be disqualified from being "communist parties? No, the article says as much. Under the section of "What is or isn't a "communist state", a splendid definition of what constitutes such a state is outlined and Burma was "a state where a Communist Party (or some other communist group) held power within the context of a single-party system of government." since the Burma Socialist Programme Party was the sole legal party (or the single party) from 1974 to 1988. So either accept that Burma was a socialist/communist state for just 14 years or change the definition (which would probably mean cutting known communist states from the list).

Categories: Talk archives