Talk:Marxist-Leninist government/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

What's this article? Why don't we merge it to communist state? Yes, I am one who has little idea even different among totalitalianism, communism and socialism. But I am sure people wonder why we need a separate article for quite related topics. -- Taku 22:24 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

And quick question. Why do you think each article should be devoted to the meaning in only one discipline? See optimization. Optimization in computer science is completely different that that in mathematics but we have just one article and communist state doesn't seem too long to edit. You can still explain what's different between communist government and state in communist state article without any trouble. Or I am probably unaware of ongoing POV war in communist state. -- Taku 22:55 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Fred Bauder has spent at this stage over twenty reverts by him in the face of clear opposition rewriting Communist state. Moving this stuff here gives people a chance to work on this without having an ungoing edit war on Cs. And no-one is arguing for dictionary definitions, but people didn't know what the term Communist state was, producing edit wars (largely the work of Bauder). That page was created to answer that question. Then Bauder tried to slot in more and more informtion which people who came to the page kept telling him belonged elsewhere. After what in total must of been nearly 40 reversions by Fred Bauder of everyone else's work and everyone else of his additions (which even he admitted were in his words 'unbalanced'), moving it out to here was the logical solution. As to definitions, would you regard it as OK if people went to Emperor of Japan and added in general practical discussions on constitutional monarchy, on Prince Charles' sex life, on the allegations of gunrunning made against the Prince of Naples, the demands for constitutional reform made by the Prince of Liechtenstein, the marriage of the Crown Prince of Norway, the rumours about the sexuality of the last King of Italy, etc? You would be the first to insist (rightly) that 'this is a page about the Emperor of Japan, not about monarchies in general'. The same is true of Communist state. It is a definition. The practical details of communISM in general belongs elsewhere, where the history, the politics, the political system and the public attitudes can be discussed without losing track of the central fact of what does the term communist state mean as a definition. ÉÍREman 23:37 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

While the principal characteristics of Communist states have been Marxism-Leninism, the Leninist state structure, and the expropriation and nationalization of productive property (although the scope has varied), this topic is really extremely difficult to address because it's dealing with the unique histories of such a great multitude of centers. This article will need to address how Marxism-Leninism was applied to certain conditions and how these conditions led to different types of application.

It's also critical that any article on the characteristics of Communist states pay attention to the unique regional historical context and social origins of each major Communist regime. Among those stressing economic structures, Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy is a great source on the rise of communism in Russia and China. Among civilizationist history, Arnold Toynbee's assessment of the rise of communism in both China and Russia is also very interesting. Though a wealth of scholars have done great works from similar perspectives, these two stand out in their respective camps.

Aside from being devoid of any understanding of the unique histories of many vastly different societies, Fred Bauder's essay seems to look at Communism as a monolith of the Stalinist-type, which is useful to a point, but not acceptable without some extra context. For one, this system evolved in Russia for a wide variety of factors, not because it was laid out in some handbook or blueprint drafted by Marx and Lenin. However, I do not de-emphasize that the socialist system in the Soviet Union would eventually emerge as a sort of model. For instance, think of the parallels between Mussolini's Italy in the 1920s and Nazi Germany a decade later, along with the structural similarities between the two states. In many respects, Mussolini's Italy provided a blueprint for Nazi Germany just as the Soviet Union provided a blueprint following World War II for its satellite nations in Eastern Europe, which came to power due to Soviet intervention, and its Communist allies in East Asia, which came to power due to local revolutions. Although Mussolini did not dominate fascist ideology as a global monolith as Stalin seemed to dominate Communism, you see the same phenomenon of authoritarian states mimicking paths of development established by a forerunner.

By the time of the Sino-Soviet Split, however, Soviet-style socialism is no longer a monolith and many nations begin efforts to better adapt communism to their own societies. Maoism represented that, moving away from Soviet orthodoxy, and Deng later repudiated the excesses of Maoism without reverting to socialism of the Soviet-type, explaining the notion of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" promulgated since the Deng era. However, China had really been going its own way all along; the Communist revolution there depended little on Soviet aid (in fact Mao could never forgive that the Soviet had actually supported the Nationalists over their internal opposition for a period of time!) and Mao concretely specified a role for the peasantry in the Communist revolution, distinguishing his brand of Communism from the Leninist orthodoxy.

In short, I'm still deeply troubled by the sweeping nature of this text, which presents a monolith which simply has never existed or only existed from 1945-1964 as an allusion of both Western and Communist propaganda.

These problems are the less obvious ones. The obvious and central problem, however, is the POV. It's unbalanced. Although I posted this comment earlier on another page, let me bring it here so that others can get those points. I'm really tired now physically and tired mentally of explaining the problems with Fred's rants over and over again to finish this point without referring to an old explanation!

To give contributors an idea how absurd Fred's additions are let me turn his notions upside down just to make a point about being misleading and simplistic. For instance, I'd also reject someone trying to say that one of the characteristics of the Communist state would be the near-elimination of poverty and the doubling of life expectancy, even though these two trends were undoubtedly witnessed in the two largest Communist states, China and the Soviet Union. You could even say that rapid growth without inflation or with low inflation is a characteristic of the Communist state! Stalinist Russia industrialized more rapidly than any country in history with no inflation and China has been sustaining one of the world's highest rates of per capita GDP growth over the past two decades with low inflation. You could even make the argument that Communist states have greatly liberalized many societies, opening the doors for new opportunities for women, liberating workers from feudal or quasi-feudal landlords, revolutionizing society whereby individuals have the opportunity to choose their own professions as opposed to having them determined by family origin, and laying the groundwork for individuals to enjoy more individual freedom than ever before in history. All of these trends have been evident in China, where modern Chinese are now free from their landlords and extended families, unlike in 1949. However, for these trends to be listed as characteristics of the Communist state would be utterly ridiculous. These trends occurred due to a complex range of factors. The unfortunate aspect of history, like statistics, is that a propagandist is free to conflate correlation with causation to suggest whatever damn point that he'd like. Wikipedia, however, demands scholarly history, not propaganda. We do not need to be making such sweeping claims in favor of Communism or against it. That's why historians warn of sweeping generalizations incessantly. 172


I'm concerned that this decision is exactly what Fred wants: on his http://www.internet-encyclopedia.info/wiki.phtml he advocates "MPOV" instead of NPOV: one page for each POV. This is more or less what we've given him here. In the midst of these 40 recersions, has he actually discussed the changes with other people on the talk page? -- Tarquin 08:47 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Tarquin: Jtdirl and 172 attacked Fred from the start for his contributions. At no point did they try to open a polite or respectful dialogue with him, and throughout have insinuated or simply stated that he is entirely at fault and unreasonable. The "twenty reverts by him in the face of clear opposition" Jtdirl referred to was simply Fred reinserting text that Jtdirl and 172 (the anonymous "clear opposition") were deleting, while calling for his banning and claiming he was a vandal.
I guess what I'm saying is that if there's anything to be concerned by, the behavior of all the participants would be it. --The Cunctator 20:56 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think I can say I am reasonable disinterested in this matter. It stikes me that Jt and 172 know what they are talking abouyt; while Fred is repeatedly trying to add propaganda. He's being asked to justify his edits on two talk pages right now. Where is he? -- Tarquin 21:03 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Where am I? I'll do my best to make this and associated articles good NPOV article. I wonder when 172 is going to put his good ideas into the article instead of into rants? For example, although millions did die both in the Soviet Union and in the People's Republic due to famines for which the countries' leaders were partly responsible, once things settled down almost everyone did have a minimal income, low to be true, but enough to survive, so the generalization about poverty can be improved, in fact one might say that poverty was nationalized then generously redistributed so everyone could have some. Fred Bauder 22:16 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't realize it had been redirected by The Cunctator. Not sure what to make of that. Have to sleep on it. Fred Bauder 22:21 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

I have reinstated your text. I don't agree on it but you and others can work on it. There is no reason why this acticle cannot be complimentary to the article on Communist state with each linked, just as practical aspects of constitutional monarchies in different states can be linked to the main article defining constitutionally what is a constitutional monarchy. That is by far the best solution and it allows you to work on this article with whomever else wants to contribute, dealing with the issues you and whomever else wants to contribute thinks relevant. The Cunctator's solution would simply continue the edit war on Communist state and prevent you from working on this text which you clearly feel strongly about. My concern as a political scientist and historian is simply to ensure that articles cover what is explicitly relevant. My specific concern in with regard to political science definitions, not a broader discussion on communISM as it has worked or not worked. Though I disagree with some of the contents here and do think it is POV I do not intend to get involved in the work here; that is for people with more factual knowledge. All I would hope is that it does manage to achieve the requirements of NPOV, which does not mean hiding communism's failures and problems. Nor does it mean delivering a list of condemnations of communism. This article needs to get the balance right. ÉÍREman 22:55 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my comments, Fred. JTD, Tannin, and I have no political agendas. 172

"...eventually a communist state may collapse even with considerable public support among the general population simply because it is seen by its leadership to not work."

This begs for an example. Does it refer to the Soviet Union?

Yes, but not to Gorbachev who if had succeeded would have preserved the essentials of the socialist system. The one who really acted as a wrecker was Boris Yeltsen, part of the leadership, but the real leaders that are responsible are the military and KGB leaders who found the level of killing and imprisonment that would have been necessary to control the situation were not justified by the benefits and prospects of the system. That is the significance of the quote from Vladimir Putin "Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart...Anyone who wants it restored has no brains." [1] In many ways this is similar to the reaction of the Cossack troops to the demonstrations of 1917 at the Winter Palace with its thousands crying for bread.Fred Bauder 12:14, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Marx specified that the workers would rise up to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism, but he did not explain how capitalism would transform into socialism, which anti-communists consider a serious theoretical flaw. In theory, prior to this final stage, the state holds the property on behalf of its citizens. "

I think the second "socialism" is supposed to be "communism", yes?

I think this should probably read, "he did not explain how socialism would transform into communism... One sign of a Marxist-Leninist regime in trouble is that they start claiming they have achieved "communism". Idiot wind. Fred Bauder 12:14, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Communism is defined as the absence of government. Thus, communist government is an oxymoron. You can have a communist party. You can have a communist society. You can even have a socialist government (like the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics did). But you can not have a communist government.

The existence of this page is idiotic. It's perfectly fine to think a communist society can never exist for whatever reason. Thinking this does not conjure the existence of an oxymoronic communist government however.

Good thinking. I will move the page to Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. Fred Bauder 21:16, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would it not be more neutral to name this Marxist Lenninist Government. Dictatorship is not strictly correct and certainly not neutral G-Man 21:26, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A communist state is an oxymoron since communism means a society where there is no state. Marxist-Leninist government, socialist government, communist party run government and so forth is fine. Governments usually call themselves what they are - most Americans would concede their country is and tries to be for the most part capitalist, and most people in the USSR would tell you their country called itself and supposedly tried to be socialist. Beyond that, this article is very POV and I am going through it. -- Lancemurdoch 22:51, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist parties call themselves the Communist Party, thus the use of communist in this context. Fred Bauder 23:06, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you use a capital 'C'? I would agree that a lowercase c is not appropriate. From communism: According to the 1996 third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, communism is always written with a small "c". Big "C" Communism (and its related forms) refers to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party. --Jiang 02:03, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From VFD

  • Communist government - oxymoronic. Communism means the absence of government, thus a communist government is an oxymoron. You can have a socialist government (like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). You can have a communist party, or a communist society. But you can not have a communist government, it is an oxymoron. This page should be deleted, or at the very least moved to socialist government or communist society. If there is a detractor, can you please explain to me what a "communist government" is? This is the most inherently POV page I've seen yet from the title alone. It's kind of like saying Christians are people waiting for Jesus to return, and that he has returned, and he has renounced Christianity, and that all of this is a fact. -- Lancemurdoch 20:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep Name has been changed to Marxist-Leninist dictatorship to deal with any ambiguity about ideals of pure communism.Fred Bauder 03:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I think we have to go with common parlance on this one and keep. -- stewacide 21:41, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Regardless of what one or another group of people think "communist" ought to mean, a meaning which it actually has is "the parties of government in certain countries including the USSR, China and Cuba", and that is the meaning used here. Hence there is no contradiction. Onebyone 01:41, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. You can have a Communist government (capital c) as in government run by the Communist Party. Now located at Marxist-Leninist government. Do explain more clearly how this term is not accepted by communists. --Jiang 02:37, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Move Marxist-Leninist government to Communist-Party government to stay as close to the "common parlance" as possible w/o ambig, and keep Marxist-Leninist government, Marxist-Leninist dictatorship and Communist government as redirs to it; IMO this answers the concern raised. --Jerzy 22:36, 2004 Jan 6 (UTC)
      • "Communist-Party government" is a bad idea. What's the dash for? "Communist government" is a standard political science term used in non-communist (whoops!) countries. We only need to state in the intro that Marxists object to this term. --Jiang 23:56, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. (loosely, Communist government = "Pinko" governments) JDR
    • In pure Communism, 'Communist government' is correct. Communism is a system of governing society, even if it didn't have a 'legislative branch' it was all made up of an 'executive branch.' For it to even theoretically exist it must mutually hold among the people a peremptory constitution. Why else would Mikhail Bakunin have split with Marx if Communism wasn't a form of government? Because Marx believed government was necessary to the evolution of society Nagelfar 01:28, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was looking back through the edit history and found this edit by User:G-Man: "occasionally because a Marxist party has been elected"; I can't think of any such instance. Please enlighten me. Fred Bauder 17:54, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Salvador Allende? Socialist parties have come to power numerous times. --Jiang

That was certainly a leftist government which might have developed into a Marxist-Leninist dictatorship but really wasn't given a chance to. The point at which the Allende government might have dispensed with further elections was not reached. Or it might simply have continued holding elections as in Kerala. This article is really not about these situations where democratic processes continue. Nor is it about socialism. France is not a Marxist-Leninist government simply because a coalition of socialist and communist parties forms a government. It is about Marxist-Leninist parties taking power with no more elections. Anyway I'll take the reference out unless someone comes up with at least one example. Fred Bauder 11:21, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The sentence only concerns how a Marxist party is elected, now what it does after office. The difference between simple marxism and marxism-leninism must be noted. --Jiang 17:31, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Noted, although in practice any simple Marxist ends up in jail in a Marxist-Leninist state. This article is about Communinist Party dictatorships, not about Communist parties who in the past or now, in good faith, engage in democratic process. The Italian party is a good example, even after they won an election they were afraid to form a government because of fear of a CIA sponsored coup. As you folks have not come up with an example I am going to remove the reference to elected Communist Party governments. While they might have existed, no actual historical example exists to our knowledge. I say our as if one had you could have cited it. Fred Bauder 06:50, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)