Talk:Criticisms of Communist party rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] "Regime"

I am going to try yet again to address a common confusion among Wikipedia users: the word "regime" is not 'pejorative' but a value-neutral technical term referring to the formal and/or informal norms and/or rule regulating access to and constraints on power, and the composition and behavior of leaders. I found Wikipedia users a good discussion of definitions of "regime" they can download for free in Svend-Erik Skaaning, "Political Regimes and Their Changes: A Conceptual Framework." Download the PDF link on this page If you cannot download the PDF file, let me know, and I will send it to you as an attachment by email.

A number of Wikipedia users have noted that the term "regime" tends to be used more often to describe authoritarian leadership. This is not necessarily tied to a value judgment of whether we consider power in a particular political system legitimate. The term "regime" is often useful in that the concept is broad enought to refer to leadership in political systems where the lack of correspondence between formal rules and observable behavior makes it difficult to speak of the access and exercise of political power in terms of constitutional arrangements.

In an earlier correspondence with me, Nikodemos expressed concern that readers may be unfamiliar with how political scientists define "regime." This is a legitimate concern. Fortunately, it can be resolved easily. In this article, the term "regime" can be defined in a footnote or at the beginning of the article, stressing that the use of the term here is not a value judgment, and, unlike the nonsense coming from blogs, internet chat forums, and politicians' propaganda, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia—a genre of writing in which it is important to take seriously the precise meaning of words. Redirecting the article to "criticisms of communist states," however, is inappropriate. The content of the article deals with Communist rule, which means we are discussing regimes. We are not discussing 'states' (sets of institutions possessing a monopoly on the authority to make decisions for a specific territory). 172 | Talk 12:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "regime" is pejorative in common use, as attested by the regime article on wikipedia (before you edited it). MSN Encarta defines a "regime" as "the government of a particular country, especially one that is considered to be oppressive". [1]
Yes, political scientists use "regime" as a value-neutral term, but it is long-standing practice on wikipedia (and official policy, if I'm not mistaken) to use words according with their common meanings. And yes, we could write a section explaining the use of the word "regime" in this article, but why make that effort and still risk confusion when it would be easier to use the word "state" instead? It may not be technically accurate, but everyone will understand what the article is talking about.
Perhaps, as a compromise, we could use the title Criticisms of communist governments. -- Nikodemos 18:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The term government could cause confusion in the case of Moldova: Moldova has a Communist government, but is not a Communist state or regime. Luis rib 20:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You bring up a good point. I realize that "Communist regime" is not specific enough either, since it may be interpreted to refer to any kind of Communist Party rule, even within a democratic state. We are really talking about the regimes that ruled Communist states, but renaming the article to Criticisms of the regimes that ruled Communist states would be absurd. Except for a minor technicality, is there any overriding reason why we can't keep this article at Criticisms of communist states? -- Nikodemos 20:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a minor technicality. The lack of specificity in the term "communist regime" is deliberate. A description any more specific than 'criticisms of communist regimes' or 'communist rule' makes it difficult to encompass such a diverse range of discussions in the article. Second, regarding the question of whether common usage trumps technical usage by specialists in encyclopedias, try telling the techies on this site to merge the online service provider article with the web service article because they refer to the same things in "common usage." 172 | Talk 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither "online service provider" nor "web service" includes words that are pejorative in common use, thus your comparison is inadequate. If "provider" was overwhelmingly used in common speech to refer to people providing illegal services on the black market, for example, "online service provider" would certainly be an inappropriate name for an article.
And the issue is a minor technicality, because all the criticisms in this article are specifically directed at the regimes of countries that had the constitutional structure known as a "Communist state". Your objection, as far as I can tell, is that they are not criticisms of the constitutional structure itself, and are therefore not technically "criticisms of Communist states", but rather criticisms of the regimes that ruled Communist states. I'm sorry, but that does count as a minor technicality; no one without prior knowledge in political science would even notice it. -- Nikodemos 23:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are supposed to educate readers. If it can give readers some knowledge in political science, maybe that knowledge will inspire them to clean up the mess that makes up this and related entries. Encyclopedias are not supposed to reinforce the stupidity common in political and media propaganda about Third World "regimes" we ought to bomb because they're 'evil.' Why can't a paragraph in the intro clarifying the meaning of the term or a footnote clear up the common misunderstanding? If the term still bothers you, I cannot think of a reason the article cannot be redirected yet again to 'criticisms of communist rule.' 172 | Talk 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's plain silly. We ought to start the article about criticism of communist regimes by explaining what regime is? Why not start the article on the Czech Republic by explaining what a Republic is! Seriously, what's so bad about calling this article Criticisms of communist states, if the word regime poses such problems? Luis rib 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I like the article I recommended is that quotes a great comment by Cicero, "Every piece of rational instruction upon any matter ought to begin with a definition, so that everyone understands what the subject of discussion is." That said, while the article might not have to start off explicating all the concepts underlying the discussion, the subject of the article must be clear enough to delineate the content belonging here. 172 | Talk 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of communist regimes

Does anyone else find it really upsetting that only a handful of criticisms of communist regimes can actually apply to communism itself? As in, the kind of communism people who aren't dictators write about in books and manifestos? And if so, does anyone else find it more upsetting that many people assume that all criticisms of communist regimes can also apply to written communism, thus blurring the lines between thought and act and leading to an ever-present anti-communist sentiment? VolatileChemical 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds pretty much like the way criticisms of capitalist regimes tend be applied also more generally to markets economics, creating an ever-present "anti-capitalist" and "anti-market economics" and - dare I mention it - "anti-globalisation" sentiment. Luis rib 23:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Referring to "capitalist regimes" is nonsense. The term capitalism refers to an economic system. The connection between analyses of states and regimes and economic systems is a complicated one. I suggest to everyone reading some introductory material in political science before editing this article. 172 | Talk 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course there's no such tings as capitalist regimes. I was being sarcastic. Yet the point VolatileChemical was highlighting also applies to capitalism (the economic system) and its failures, which are presented as general failures of free market economics. Luis rib 13:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignore users commenting on stuff like 'the failures of capitalism.' No matter how stupid the comments are, try to resist responding. Don't let them turn Wikipedia into an online political chatroom. 172 | Talk 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do find it somewhat annoying. So this articles name needs to be changed, as it excludes things like rule by democratically elected socialist partys. So yes, we should call it "regimes," because those are the only ones the Article Criticises anywayFudk (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] communism

this article seems to have a large anti-communist bias.--Crocadog 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called "Criticisms" of communism party rule/regimes/states for a reason... Luis rib 13:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is run in the west. So of course it will be biased.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constant renaming of article

I don't really care if this article is constantly moved to other names. However, the person that renames the article should at least be so consistent and change all the refences in the article itself. Currently, the whole article talks about communist states and only the title has been changed. Luis rib 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of communist state

In the article Communist state, there is the following definition:

"Communist state is a term used by many political scientists to describe a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system and declares allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof."

Doesn't this defintion fit perfectly for the purpose of this article as well? The current title is rather cumbersome... Luis rib 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this misunderstanding keeps coming up, I think I'll save time by copying and pasting one of Jtdirl's (ÉÍREman's) early replies to this question rather than typing my own explantion over and over again: OH boy. How many times and how many people have to explain it. A system of government deals with two issues: the constitutional structures and how they work. In this case, it involves the concept of government as held within communism and the manner in which in a Cs of government, unlike in liberal democracies party and constitutional structures are embedded in each other. The general characteristics of a political system belong in an article on the political system or on history, not here. Jeez. How come you have such difficulty grasping a fundamental characteristics of this article, when no-one else can? Your information if well written belongs in an article. But simply not this one because it is as irrelevant here as discussing George W. Bush's linguistic dexterity in an article on Federal Republics, or a piece on Prince Charles's sex life in an article on the constitutional concept of constitutional monarchy ... ÉÍREman 14:30 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC) 172 | Talk 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question. Luis rib 18:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. 'Communist state' refers to the "the constitutional structures and how they work... it involves the concept of government as held within communism." An article on 'criticisms of communist states' would amount to an article on essentially criticisms of the Soviet and PRC constitutions, not broader issues of the practice of Communist rule. 172 | Talk 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If I use the above mentioned definition - which I expect to be correct since it's from another wikipedia article - a communist state is a form of government where the state operated under an one-party system which declares allegiance to Marxism-Lenins. So obviously criticism of communist states is criticism of governments where the state operates under one-party Marxist-Leninist systems. That seems broad enough to me. Luis rib 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to what you acknowledge (not that I advise reifying 'definitions' appearing in Wikipedia articles) a Communist state is a form of government. Now, with what does a form of government deal? The formal constitutional structures and how they work. Are the authors covered in this article mostly interested in criticisms of the formal constitutional structures of Communist states? The answer is of course not. The USSR, PRC, and other Communist states have been characterized by sharp divergence between the formal system as expressed in constitutions and actual practice. The authors described in this article are interested in documenting the actual practice of Communist rule. The current title is therefore appropriate. 172 | Talk 06:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Black Book of Communism uses the term "Communist regime", not "Communist party rule" or something else.Ultramarine 14:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
They mean the same thing in English, which I happen to understand. I prefer to use the term "Communist regime" because it it less wordy than "Communist party rule," but Nikodemos objects to using the term "regime." 172 | Talk 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Moldovan question again

The current title of the article again raises the Moldovan question: Moldova is currently ruled by the Communist party (after multi-party elections), yet it is not a Communist state according to the above mentioned definition. The title, therefore, is misleading and too broad, since the actual subject of this article is criticism of the dictatorial communist states. Luis rib 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This article deals with major discourses critical of Communist rule. The coverage mostly draws on Courtois et. al, Conquest, Rummel, and Pipes. I'm not aware of any of these authors giving any attention to Moldova since the election of Vladimir Voronin in 2001. If they do mention Moldova in some work (which I highly doubt), adding it here is no problem. (Perhaps the case of Moldova is an example complicating their case stressing the role of ideology and party structures in explaining the attributes usually associated with Communist rule, but that is beyond the point. The election of a Communist in a tiny ex-Soviet republic has hardly changed the way anyone thinks about Communism anyway.) 172 | Talk 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The whole point is that Moldova is a democratic state - i.e. where there is no one-party rule and the party and state are still pretty much separate entities. So Moldova is not a Communist state in the sense of this article. You could add other examples: the federal states of Kerala and West Bengal in India have been ruled by the Communist party for ages. Yet these states are not "Communist states" in the sens of this article (or according to the above-mentioned definition of Communist states since there are free democratic elections and the party is totally separated from the federal state. Luis rib 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
And the same with a number municipalities in Western Europe, particularly Italy and Spain. This article branched off from criticisms of communism, not the article on communist state. There is no problem with including the entities you mention if they receive coverage in the works of Courtois et. al, Conquest, Rummel, and Pipes upon which this article is based. This question, however, is not very relevant because you have not produced evidence these entities receive much attention in major anticommunist discourses. 172 | Talk 11:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, the Black Book of Communism use the term "Communist regime".Ultramarine 14:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
That's my point! Why are you telling me the above? I am the editor most outspokenly in favor of changing the title to 'criticisms of Communist regimes.' Nikodemos, however, objects so strongly we must use the completely synonymous title 'criticisms of Communist regimes' to avoid constant move words. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if you are following the discussion or just trying to get into a 'flamewar' with me. 172 | Talk 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was exactly that those entities do not receive attention because they are essentially different from those that are criticized. Insofar, IMO the name is not very good because in Moldova the Communist party rules, but it rules in a democratic context. Anyway, why can't we go back to Criticisms of Communist regimes? AFAIK there was no real discussion between the move from "regimes" to "party rule", or have I missed something? Luis rib 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

We're going in circles here. To recap, you're arguing that we should change the title so that we can rule of covering entities you admit do not receive much attention anyway. In other worlds, we should change the title to rule out covering stuff that we are not going to bother to cover anyway. That argument is silly enough to remind me of interactions I have had with people who continue arguing as an end itself. 172 | Talk 05:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Luis Rib. Luis, do we have an agreement? 172 moved wihout consensus or dicussions on talk. Ultramarine 13:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant that you "agree with Luis Rib." You have to have a valid point. To start, you have to attempt to exlain it rather than delcare your opinion. By the way, in light of your comment "The Black Book of Communism uses the term 'Communist regime'" you seem to agree with me that we are dealing with criticisms of communist regimes. Luis Rib seems to want the article moved to 'criticisms of communist states.' Do you have any point here, or do you just want to annoy me because you don't like my account? 172 | Talk 17:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with communist regimes. At least that was discussed on this page and it doesn't create the Moldovan problem (even though I do prefer Communist states, but I'm not dogmatic about it). My problem was with the new name - a change which wasn't discussed, which only concerned the title (while all other mentions in the article continue to use "state" or "regime") and which created IMO the problem that it was too broad, since Communist parties can rule without the whole country becoming a "Communist state" or a "Communist regime". Luis rib 18:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no, and no. The "Moldova problem" is nothing more than confusion on this talk page. Please read what I am writing carefully. I have been teaching these concepts for over 35 years to university students since I first became a TA in grad school. You may learn something too. In terms of the formal system as expressed in constitutions, liberal democracies by definition cannot be ruled by political parties. (In other words, your comment "Communist parties can rule [rule the "whole country?"] without the whole country becoming a 'Communist state' or a 'Communist regime'" is wrong.) The post-Soviet constitution declares Moldova a democratic, law-based state with a republican form of government, with state power divided among the parliament, the president, and the judicial branch. Under the constitutions, political parties do not rule Moldova, but merely form coalitions in parliament or mobilize voter preferences in elections.
I can tell you are confused as to whether Moldova is a "liberal democratic regime" or a "Communist regime"/"under Communist rule." Honestly, I cannot answer the question because I am not a specialist on Moldova. But I do know how to approach the question, as I am a professional historian with training in political theory. In addressing the question, first, there are two dimensions worth considering:
(1) The question of government: the formal system of rule as expressed in constitutions
(2) The question of regime: the actual practice of the political system
Next, we must ask whether there is a sharp divergence between the formal system of government expressed by Moldova's constitution (declaring Moldova a democratic, law-based state with a republican form of government) and the actual practice of the political system. If the answer is no, then Moldova can be described as having both a liberal democratic form of government and a liberal democratic regime.
If there is a sharp divergence, we cannot adequately describe Moldova as a liberal democratic "regime." Under those conditions, to figure out how to specify the type of non-democratic regime we are describing, we investigate where are the loci of power in the formal and informal practice of political system. If the locus of power is "the Communist Party," then we are describing a "Communist regime" or "Communist party rule."
I do not doubt the above explanation would clear things up for my bright undergrads. Therefore, I expect the above to clear up the confusion here. Now that there should no longer be any confusion about the political system and governmental form of A STATE THAT NONE OF THE AUTHORS RELEVANT TO THIS ARTICLE EVEN CARES ABOUT!!!, it is time to put this discussion to rest. Regardless of whether or not we call Moldova a Communist regime, it is no reason to change the title of the article. Now, please drop this. 172 | Talk 20:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation which is indeed very interesting. BTW I never considered Moldova a Communist regime; thanks for clarifying what you meant by "party rule". Since apparently you must be at least an undergraduate student of politics to understand the subtle nuances, I'm still not totally convinced that this is the best title for a wikipedia article aimed at your normal wikipedian.

BTW you don't know if the authors relevant to this article care about Moldova or not - Moldova's Communists only govern since 2001 - i.e. after Courtois et al. published their book.

Be that as it may, I still prefer "Communist regimes". I'll stop arguing about it though.

Still, I'd like to point out - again - that only the title has been changed and not the rest of the article. Be consistent at least, for God's sake, and update the rest of the article! Luis rib 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, it looks like we're getting on the same page. Sorry if I wasn't as clear earlier. Re: Since apparently you must be at least an undergraduate student of politics to understand the subtle nuances, I'm still not totally convinced that this is the best title for a wikipedia article aimed at your normal wikipedian. I don't think it's a problem that many readers won't grasp the subtle nuances of why one title was chosen over another. As a case in point, I'll use myself as both a reader and an editor. In some areas I am an expert. In more areas (especially biology, physics, and chemistry), my competence may be below standard for a high school student. In subjects about which I know little, I don't expect to pick up on all the subtle nunaces as to why certain titles were selected over others. But I do expect the editors selecting those titles to have grasped those nuances. I'm confident the editors working on articles related to Communist rule (regardless of how frustrated I often seem with them) are generally sharp enough and have enough of a knowledge base to get the subtle nuances if they are willing to listen to other members of the community who can help them sharpen their understandings. Re: I still prefer "Communist regimes". I'll stop arguing about it though": That is the conclusion I reached recently in order to compromise with Nikodemos, who deems the term regime "pejorative." Good to hear you are joining the new factional alignment. Re: BTW you don't know if the authors relevant to this article care about Moldova or not - Moldova's Communists only govern since 2001 - i.e. after Courtois et al. published their book. This raises an interesting point. If they do, it’ll be informative to add the relevant material here. Please keep an eye out for such material. Re: Still, I'd like to point out - again - that only the title has been changed and not the rest of the article. Be consistent at least, for God's sake, and update the rest of the article! Of course. As soon as it appears as if we are done with move wars, I'll take on the burden myself. (I already did it once. Then my work was undone as people started removing the "pejorative" references to "regimes.") 172 | Talk 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Some states under Communist rule have been accused of directly supporting terrorist groups, such as the PFLP, the Red Army Fraction, and the Japanese Red Army.[8] North Korea has been implicated in terrorist acts such as Korean Air Flight 858.

This is clearly a manifestation of the POV of western capitalist countries. In the case of the PFLP, this is a Zionist POV. There are not any implications of the United States sponsoring terrorism despite the fact that they assisted terrorists in Nicaragua and Afghanistan during the 1980s. Many attacks by RAF targetted the facilities of the US occupation which is hardly terrorism. If anything, it is national resistance against an occupying power.--Ploughman 0343 GMT, 26 January 2006

Please avoid making politically charged attacks on 'Western capitalist countries' and 'U.S. terrorism.' I will cut you some slack because you are a new user. You are correct that Wikipedia articles themselves should not be classifying certain groups as "terrorists." If the article is making references to 'terrorism,' the solution is to attribute the use of the term to the specific works of literature that constitute the subject of the article. 172 | Talk 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, no-one is denying that the US might have sponsored terrorists or revolutionaries in Afghanistan or Nicaragua, yet this is not the subject of this article at all! There are other articles where this is discussed. Luis rib 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emigration

This section has got to be some kind of joke if the attempt is to show communism in a bad light on the basis of emigration. Emigration has by no means been limited to communist ruled countries. Hundreds of thousands each year from non-communist Mexico migrate beyond their home country. And it keeps on increasing decade by decade. In fact, immigration has only increased since the overthrow of socialism in the likes of Yugoslavia, Ukraine, etc. From Poland, 97 thousand migrated to America in the 1980s compared to 170 thousand in the 1990s. And since joining the EU hundreds of thousands of Poles have fled to western countries.

Moreover, the grammar and spelling on this page is horrendous. Entire sections ought to be deleted on the basis of this.--Ploughman 0414 GMT, 27 January 2006

The grammar, style, and spelling on this page are indeed horrendous. In the past few days I think I have spent more time copyediting this mess than I have spent in the past writing from skratch articles usable enough to be featured on the main page. But it only takes one person to stop editors from deleting poor content on this basis. So if you want to work on this article, you have to make good with what is currently offered. 172 | Talk 05:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin and KPD

This is a ridiculously one sided POV. Military cooperation between USSR and Germany during the 1920s had nothing to do with helping the Nazis rise to power especially considering the fact how Germany's military budget soared after 1933. Moreover, this tries to negate that the Social Democrats had been bitter anti-communists. This is best exemplified by how Friedrich Ebert collaborated with the proto-Nazi Freikorps in smashing Spartakusbund as well as the smashing of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. One could as easily accuse Friedrich Ebert of starting WWII because had he not smashed the Spartakusbund, then there would have not been a second World War because Germany and USSR would be allies. Ploughman 27 January 2007, 04:25 (UMT)

The section is not one-sided in the sense that it is about anticommunist perspectives on the subject, not the subject itself. This article is about anticommunist literature. Specifically, the section on Stalin and the KPD is based on Richard Pipes, one of the best-known anticommunist writers. ou will not be able to replace Pipes with other authors. But you want to summarize and cite critical reviews, if they respond to Pipes specifically. 172 | Talk 05:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literature

Ultramarine has objected to the use of headings focusing attention back on the literature in the article. Ultramarine, are you familiar with how the usage of the term? The term "literature" refers a collection of texts, the unit of any established way of thinking. "Criticisms of Communism" are inconceivable independent of texts. I inserted the term in the headings to remind future editors to stay focused on notable sources on the subject. Otherwise, there is a tendency of Wikipedia users to go off topic with their own view of things, rather than focusing on the core works in the literature criticial of Communist rule. 172 | Talk 09:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your intention is good (also, thanks for your work on this article in general!). However, the same could be said for any Wikipedia article and I think policies such as No original research already covers this. However, for the moment I will not contest it.Ultramarine 09:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I don't think I've been complimented by you before. I'm really surpised, thanks. You're right that policies such as "no original research" and "verifibility" cover the problem to which I allude above. But they often don't work at times without explaining them over and over again to new people, and that requires lots of energy and time. Eventually, I hope that the article is clealy grounded in the work of Conquest, Pipes, Hayek, Friedman, Solzhenitsyn, Rummel, Courtois et. al, Jung, and other various other comparably accomplished researchers, so that we're not resorting to references of unnamed "critics" or "advocates." ... By the way, lots of work is still required. I think a "Literature on totalitarianism" section is most needed. Works by Karl Popper, Hannah Arendt, and Zbigniew Brzezinski-- canon on the subject-- are barely referenced, if at all. If you want to write such a section, I'll be happy to copyedit it. 172 | Talk 10:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I think totalitarianism, will certainly an important topic, should not be a main focus, since at least also Hitler was totalitarian. It could be mentioned similarly to personality cult.Ultramarine 10:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, never mind. Now that you mentioned it, I remember you did do work on Karl Popper, which is now in criticisms of Marxism. The subjects, of course, overlap; but overall Popper and Arendt probably fit better with what we have in "criticisms of Marxism." The solution is probably to insert another heading at the top of the article directing the reader to criticisms of Marxism. 172 | Talk 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried this [2] Maybe the note will help. 172 | Talk 06:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks fine.Ultramarine 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

172, I don't understand your argument that we should use "Literature" section titles because this article mostly deals with summaries of prominent books. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and no original research policies, so content of all articles should consist from summaries of prominent books, essays and articles. That's not the reason to start each section in every article with "Literature..." part. -- Vision Thing -- 19:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Because this article not only derives from the literature; the focus is directly on the literature, as the topic is "criticism." 172 | Talk 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree, this article isn't called "Criticisms and literature...". Anyway, I don't see any harm from leaving main section titled "Ares of literature", but repeating "literature" in every next header is redundant at best. -- Vision Thing -- 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Given that the subject is criticism, that we are dealing with literature is implied. Literature is the principal medium of criticisms. Repeating the title is helpful, though maybe redundant, as it reminds editors to focus on the core works of the literature, rather than going off topic with their own view of events. 172 | Talk 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Articles are here for readers, not editors. -- Vision Thing -- 12:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Readers also happen to be interested in understanding exactly what the topic is at hand before they read the sections. Please leave the article headings alone. 172 | Talk 05:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that this is an article about (perceived) shortcomings of the communist rule. If you want an article which deals with literature about shortcomings of the communist rule, go ahead and create it, but leave this article alone. -- Vision Thing -- 18:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
No, don't tell me to leave this article alone; I am the one who copyedited this article, finally making it readable after more than a year. There is no difference between an "article about (perceived) shortcomings of the communist rule" and what you refer to as an "article which deals with literature about shortcomings of the communist rule." The term "literature" refers a collection of texts, the unit of any established way of thinking. "Criticisms of Communism" are inconceivable independent of texts. The term is important in the headings to remind future editors and readers to stay focused on notable sources on the subject, rather than posting their own personal commentaries. 172 | Talk 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:OWN. Also, purpose of headers is not to remind editors to stay focused on notable sources. Wikipedia has appropriate polices for that. -- Vision Thing -- 15:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You're the one issuing demands to me, telling me to leave your article alone. You go see WP:OWN. I already explained to you why the headings are relevant to readers. Stop repeating yourself and going in circles. It is becoming disruptive. 172 | Talk 11:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
You are the one how is repeating yourself. Your headings are in no way relevant to readers and that can be easily seen by looking to other articles in Wikipedia. -- Vision Thing -- 12:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
No, before my copyedits, readers commonly got confused about this article, assuming it was criticism of communism in itslef, rather than a summary of the notable literature on the subject. The headings clear up the confusion. 172 | Talk 17:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you point me to some examples of such confusion? -- Vision Thing -- 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
For one, Plougham's comments on this page deriding the article as "clearly a manifestation of the POV of western capitalist countries" is an example of that misunderstanding. Plougham fails to understand the subject of the article is the classic literature condemning the crimes of Communist regimes, not a violation of NPOV. 172 | Talk 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't find any mention of "Plougham" on this page. -- Vision Thing -- 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Then look harder. It is User:Ploughman. 172 | Talk 05:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Your spelling of his name was wrong. Ploughman is currently indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:Jacob Peters. -- Vision Thing -- 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My misspelling of Ploughman's account name and his/her status as an editor have nothing to do with the issue at hand. You know very well that he/she is not the first editor to come to this page with POV problems; and you are fully aware of the earlier discussions about these types of pages in the older archives of criticisms of communism. The point is that we must clarify that this article is about the well-known works critical of Communist rule appearing in widely read books and articles, not about critiques of individual Wikipedia editors or fringe sources. I am willing to compromise on not including the word "literature" in the individual subheadings, but the focus must be clarified in some of the key headings. 172 | Talk 06:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you be satisfied by clarification note in the italicized lead, where other clarifications are already placed? -- Vision Thing -- 11:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is already cluttered with italicized notes in the lead, which together are about as long as some article introductions. If they get too long, we risk the chance readers will skip reading the notes. The clarification is necessary in the main headings, tough not essential in some of the subheadings. 172 | Talk 11:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

172, you say that we should avoid self-references to Wikipedia. That is true, but pointing to Wikipedia's policy is not self-referencing. For example, there are numeros templates (like POV, merge, clean up tags) which are created with specific purpose to be placed on top of the articles, and which contain links to appropriate Wikipedia's policies. -- Vision Thing -- 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


172 is pursuing a good line here by influencing editors into detailing the critical study of various aspects of Communist party rule. Which is what this page should be about. Perhaps it is also worth exploring a variety of heading titles such as "Studies of..." & "Analysis of..." - of which there are many examples throughout the encylopedia.-- Zleitzen(talk) 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good way to influence editors is by talk page discussions, not through badly worded headers in the article. But analysis might be acceptable. -- Vision Thing -- 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
"Analysis" does not work because the term may be taken to refer to the original 'analyses' of Wikipedia editors, not the notable texts that are the topics of discussion in the article. 172 | Talk 05:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the ridiculous overuse of "Literature On" need to be removed, as few or no other Wikipedia articles are formatted in that way. It seems very unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornman7001 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And lo, it is done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornman7001 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes and references

I have finsihed the basic copyediting. Now, can someone help me figure out why the notes and references are split? I don't know how to fix this problem. 172 | Talk 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The old notes system should probably be replaced with the more recent and better ref-/ref system.Ultramarine 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... Changing the notes sounds tedious, but I'll do it. Since there are 32 notes, can we make a dead whereby I do 16 and you do 16? 172 | Talk 02:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean to change to the more modern ref system which is what Wikipedia:Citing sources prefers. The old notes system unfortunately breaks very easily if you move or change the order of references. It is also much more tedious when adding sources. I have tried to change many of the old notes that I previously added to the ref system.Ultramarine 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Im letting you know i added anarchism and communism to the internal links list.--Crocadog 13:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big-C small-c

I have changed all uses of communism with a small c to a capital letter where this refers to Communist states or parties (i.e. as a proper noun). This avoids the problem of the difference between what Marxists think is "really" communism with the doctrines of parties named Communist. (Analogy would be the difference between labour and Labour, or conservative and Conservative.) See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_communism#Summary_of_communism_and_Communist_states BobFromBrockley 12:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As the articles have both moved location now, just to note this is what I am referring to, in case it dissappears with future edits:
Note also that when referring to an ideology or a proponent of that ideology, specifically Marxism which has as its ultimate goal the classless communist society, the terms "communism" and "communist" take an initial lowercase letter ("c"). When referring explicitly to a Communist Party, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, the terms are capitalized (i.e. "Communism," "Communist").

BobFromBrockley 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was attempting to do so earlier, but it I see that I had missed some. 172 | Talk 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I just re-read this, and noticed the "specifically Marxism", as there are non-Marxist small-c communists (see, e.g. anarchist communism). Am changing it. BobFromBrockley 12:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two criticisms pages

Work needs to be done on the relationship between this page and Criticisms of communism. I think there is a clear need for both articles, but not if half of them is exactly the same! BobFromBrockley 12:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see this has been done by several hard-working editors! BobFromBrockley 16:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

After a bit of back and forth reverting by a few editors, I have tidied the external links page. I have renamed the links, so it is clearer what their provenance is. I have moved down this link, which one editor felt was insufficiently scholarly and a soapbox page - other editors might like to think whether it should be included at all. I removed all the subpages from this page as it seemed overkill (as it were) to have five links to that site. Again, one editor felt these shouldn't be there at all, as it is pure propoganda - what do others think? BobFromBrockley 14:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rummel is a respected scholar and one of the very few who tried to summarize mass murder statistics. He makes his calculations and sources available in great detail online, see for example this: [3].Ultramarine 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Humphreys is a well known Dublin crank who teaches some sort of computer networks course, but became known for his extreme political views around campus. His deliberately controversial page on politics is not scholarly, it is an absurdist blog written by a man who spent most of his life trying to replicate androids in the bowels of Dublin City University. It should certainly be removed as per these removal guidlenes: WP:EL

  • Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research.
  • Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

Rummel should perhaps remain as a scholarly record as he is writing in his field. Ultramarine introduced me to this "libertarian" Kubrikesque figure some time ago and he has since become a cult favourite. Reading Rummel is fascinating, what really caught my eye was his "Blue book of freedom", Rummel surely knows that the original "Blue Book" was a creation by the British aimed to propagandise against the German empire in order to justify the annexation of Namibia, and is a text book study of the use of propaganda. Rommel is also part of a grand movement of thinking, dominant in the 90s and generally losing popularity now that attempts to use "mathematical methods" to evaluate complex human behaviour. In terms of a tool to evaluate the endlessly complicated stories of political history, this is next to useless, as simply shifting parameters could show any statistic in any fashion. It would not be difficult to provide a model showing that Kuwait's monarchy is the most successful form of government by virtue of the lack of crime and violence in society, or that death and violence has risen significantly since the end of apartheid in South Africa thus condemning the new order etc. Hence we could create Blue Books denouncing anything we like in order to promote a certain political agenda, which was the point of the original British blue book. Rummel, in his blog, promotes George W Bush's Iraq policy "The United States is committed to liberty, freedom, and the universal struggle for human rights." - "those who continue to believe that a foreign policy focus on freedom is naive are the unrealistic ones." We don't really need to say any more about that!

Therefore Rummel's literature is notable as a record of a certain type of thinking that actually gained currency in the United States in the late 20th century. The links should be included and the material should be studied as a fascinating record, much as we study the original colonial blue book now.-- Zleitzen(talk) 16:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, maybe Rummel is thinking about the Black Book of Communism (or even Mao's Little Red Book) and not some obscure colonial text. Regarding the use of mathematics and statistics in political science and economics, this allows actual scientific testing of theories, unlike philosophical speculations and personal opinions that can never be resolved. Fortunately, such methods are increasingly used in economics and political science.Ultramarine 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No, no. Rummel explicitly refers to the Germany colonial attacks on the Hereros here [4]. This was the content of the "non-obscure" Blue Book which is a key text when studying empire, colonialism and the use of propaganda.[5] I would imagine Rummel has actually used that as a basis for his "toll of 55,000" which he discusses on his blog. Note that the Blue Book, which was ordered by the British government to demonize Germany during world war one, forms the basis of the subsequent Black Books etc. As for "scientific" methods being increasingly used in economics and political science, they have been on the wane since the turn of the century for their obvious failure to address complex human issues. But that is something we'd have to discuss outside this site as the reasons behind this shift are too complex to detail here. -- Zleitzen(talk) 17:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, hardly evidence that he named his book after the colonial one. Far more people know about the Black Book, so it seems far more likely he named his book as a contrast. Regarding actually trying to test ideas, instead of pushing personal opinions by shouting as loud as possible, this is of course preferable. Today any serious theory in political science and economics requires the backing of statstical evidence. There are thousands of peer-reviewed papers in these fields published every years using mathematics and statistics.Ultramarine 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of external links, I don't see why Rummel should be the center of discussion while we have links to the personal websites/soapboxes of a number of other people who have made no scholarly contributions to the subject. Those should be removed. Rummel is at the very least a scholar, so he can stay. -- Nikodemos 17:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, Ultramarine, I'd like to point out that there are some - on all sides of the political fence - who believe that statistics are useless in the social sciences because there are too many extraneous variables that cannot be controlled for. The Austrian School is the most prominent example in the pro-capitalist camp. -- Nikodemos 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is one reason why the Austrian school is a fringe view.Ultramarine 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That hasn't stopped them from interjecting their opinion into almost every economics-related article on wikipedia. -- Nikodemos 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The lack of tedious mathematics and empirical evidence makes their "logical" arguments easy to understand. Like, too much regulations, taxation, and bureaucracy are obviously harmful, therefore anarchy is the best system. The same, of course, applies to Marxism.Ultramarine 18:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the Mark Humphrey screed. Economics and political science is really the study of human behaviour. Mathematics, science and statistics cannot sufficiently account for the complex motives and activities of human behaviour - nor for important underlying structural causes behind political activity. Hence statistics are used as evidence to create all kinds of fantastical theories about human activity - as they were throughout the last century - some of them notable for wikipedia but almost all of them worthless. There's an editor that has been working on Race and intelligence fighting the misuse of statistics for years.<winking> I wonder who that editor could be? -- Zleitzen(talk) 17:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thousands of peer-reviewed papers disagree with you and concerning Wikipedia that is what important. Just for curiosity, what do you want instead of the scientific method? Faith? Ultramarine 18:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Please, Ultramarine, there is no reason to get so dramatic. I think Zleitzen was merely arguing that the scientific method is imperfect when applied to social sciences, and therefore we should be careful not to give the impression that we can determine laws of human behaviour with the same certainly as the laws of physics (ironically enough, the belief that we can do that is one of the pillars of classical Marxism). -- Nikodemos 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In answer to Ultramarine, I prefer detailed historical analysis, rather than Rummel's figures which give no context. However, I have no objection to them being detailed in some form on wikipedia, in the fashion 172 favours - viewed from a distance as an analysis of literature. Regarding classical Marxism, indeed that was another attempt to determine laws of human behaviour, with no greater success that we can perceive. Coincidentally, this very topic is the subject of a TV documentary series shown last night - View here which is probably why this topic is fresh in my mind and made me think of Ultramarine and Rummel.-- Zleitzen(talk) 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Despite Rummel's marginal status in the real world of acedemia (simply publishing books does not make you revelant or respected) i have no problem with his criticisms being included on a page about criticizing communist regimes. However, there is no reason to include the charts and graphs from his website explicitly on this page. It is fine to provide a link to his information so one can independenlty make a decision based on the methods he discribes, but it is academically UNACCEPTABLE to include those graphs from the main article page when they provide neither sourcing nor method on the linked page.
All the charts are available on his site and it should stay that way. otherwise, we are editorializing on Rummel's behalf by including his figures as if they are irrefutable and factual (since there is no source next to the chart it implies one is not necessary). (another argument against the mathmatic formula method of addressing social science but that's for him to decide). Icactus 11:21, 23 March 2007 UTC
Unlike the claims of anonymous editors, Rummel has been very influential. I have clarified where the graphs come from.Ultramarine 16:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The point is that a link to a specific graph provides no information as to how this data was arrived at. It is only appropriate from Rummel's site because there he spells out his method of determining these factors. to link directly to these figures without explanation, at the linked to page, from a wikipedia site is objectionable. It is not NPOV to push these statistics without the background information available. That's why the main link to his page should stay but these graphs must go.Icactus 17:39 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kazakh and Uzbek victims?

How about a section telling about how at least 2 million Kazakhs have died as a result of famine (as a result of Russia taking livestock and forcing irrigation) and disruption of ancient nomadic routes? How about a section telling how thousands of authors, scientists and other members of "intelligentscia" have died as a result of the policies of Khrushev and Kolbin? How about a section criticising the way war-veterans were handled, especially those who have managed to escape from German prison cambs in WW2 but, upon an eventual return to USSR, were deemed as traitors and killed, only to be posthumously (some 20 years later) be awarded with medals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proteinbar1234 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the artilce

I just wonder, why the current name was preferred? Personally, I think Criticism of the Communist system or Criticism of the Communist regimes are more faithful. For example, in some countries, the name of the one-party were Workers Party, etc. At least in the initial phase, this was true for all Eastern European countries, while the system suffered no change when the party changed the name. In some cases, there were alliances with other, socialist parties, trade unions, etc. For example, in Poland such an alliance existed until 1989, while in China formally there are also 8 other "democratic parties". Now, back to the Soviet Union, the Soviet system, as it was known after July 1918 was shaped entirely by the Bolsheviks. Where does Criticism of the Soviet system go, should that be a separate article? And by Soviet system, it is meant, obviously the post-July 1918 one. With a change in name of this article to Criticism of the Communist system such questions would automatically disappear. What do you think?:Dc76\talk 13:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperialism?

The imperialism subsection needs to be rewritten. There is an inconsistency. When talking about anti-imperialism and Lenin in the beginning and then taking up cases of accusations below, it should be noted that imperialism in marxist terminology (and of course, the one refered to regarding Lenin and anti-imperialism) is not merely the domination of one country over others. It is, in Lenin's discourse, a phenomenon related to stage of development of the capitalist system. Thus the comparisons in the second half get flawed, since those comparisons appear to be based merely on the notion that imperialism equals domination. (It could be added that in the Maoist movement, the term 'Social imperialism' was constructed to describe the Soviet Union after the Sino-Soviet split, but that is a somewhat different case). --Soman (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nandigram

Two editors are keen to keep a link to Nandigram violence in the 'see also' section. However, this is clearly out of bounds of the delimitation set in the intro of this article; 'This article only discusses criticisms that are specific to Communist states and not necessarily to other forms of socialism.' India nor West Bengal is not a communist state, by any means. Communist rule is here identified as a political order were the communist party hold dominant control of the entire state apparatus. Being elected to a regional government doesn't not qualify. --Soman (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This article do not discusses criticisms specific to Communist states, this article discusses criticism specific to communist party rule, which West Bengal has. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Communist rule is identified as rule by communists, and CPI(M) is communist. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The delimitation of this article is such that it only relates to communist states. If you want to change this delimitation that is possible, but would require a broader debate. --Soman (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well. You have raised a valid point. I did not notice it. But the link is not within the article, but in "See also" section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

But the 'see also' needs to have more relevance to the article topic. We cannot include every article remotely related to any communist party. Nandigram violence is not about criticism of communism/communist party/communist rule, but a political conflict in which a communist party (in regional government) is one of the actors of the conflict. --Soman (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
May I come up with a third opinion here? First, as described in article state, "Within a federal system, the term state also refers to political units, not completely sovereign themselves...". Hence West Bengal is a state, and the Comminist ruling in Bengal belongs to this article. Second, nothing precludes describing Criticisms of Communist party rule even in a city.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
But this is neither a state (mind also that communist state is not just a state governed by communists, as say current Moldova, but a state in which the communist party and state mechanism are intertwined) nor a criticism (its a conflict, with more than one side). Thus it falls outside of the range of what is relevant in the 'see also' for this article. --Soman (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)'
Moreover, I would not classify India as a federal state. States in India have far less autonomy towards the central government than states in US or länder in Germany. --Soman (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism

I had removed the 'support to terrorism' subsection, mainly since it didn't present any criticism but was rather a general statement. This article is on the criticisms on communist states, not a list of bad things done by communist states. This is an important distinction, and which is the only reason why it should be deleted as a pov fork. As per the statement itself, the use of proxies in conflicts was endemic during the Cold War regardless of the which political belief system the leading states of each bloc belonged to. The US for example, supported Contras in Nicaragua and Mujahedin in Afghanistan. --Soman (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Communist party-ruled countries were criticized for supporting terrorist groups according to many sources. If you want to improve this part - please do. Of course, US were also widely ctiticized for support of Contras in Nicaragua and Mujahedin in Afghanistan.Biophys (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)