Talk:Communism/Archive 7

Rewrite

I have inserted a concise new article to replace the old incoherent mess filled with "original research." The last two sections need work, but I will complete it very shortly. The old article was filled with so many unsourced personal theories editors have dropped in over time, and so many off topic tangents that the only way of making this into a viable encyclopedic entry was to rewrite it. Feedback, of course, is welcome. 172 05:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I do think this page should be rewrited, as the current version tells us a lot about the history of communism (may be this entry should be renamed and a new entry for "communism" is needed). However it is not answering the question: "What is communism". --Eternal 16:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine

I'm having no luck dealing with Ultramarine, whose English is too poor and POV too strong to understand that his content belongs in related entries on Communist regimes and their development strategies, not in the communism article. Help in dealing with him will be greatly appreciated. 172 05:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It is censorship to delete all critique, including external links presenting an opposing view. Ultramarine 05:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

An "opposing view" of what? The new article traces the beliefs, origins, and development of modern communism as a movement the same way other encyclopedias and sourcebooks do. No other encyclopedia includes a section in their article similar to the one that you're advocating. 172 05:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You are actually arguing that one should not be allowed to criticize a political movement/theory in Wikipedia? Every other article about major political movements/theories in Wikipedia has extensive critique. Ultramarine 05:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no Wikipedia editor should criticize anything on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. To get an idea on what this article should look like, read Encarta or Britannica's entry on Communism, or an entry in a sourcebook like Cambridge Companion. 172 06:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica's article is almost exclusively about Soviet Communism. We should change the subject of this article to that? Ultramarine 06:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it covers Soviet Communism along with Trotskyism, Titoism, and Maoism in proportion to influence over time. And, yes, the factual historical chronology of Britannica is exactly what I am advocating here. 172 06:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Including describing the atrocities of the system that killed close to 100 million people? Ultramarine 06:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in the same amount of detail as Britannica, but fitting into the same structure, not the bloated grab-bag "crtiques" section you keep on reinserting. 172 06:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you first makes it an official Wikipedia policy that articles should have the same structure and proportional content as EB. Until then, no censorship of critique here, just like in the other articles about political movements/theories. Please read more on NPOV in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 06:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you read "no original research." I am serious about making this a real encyclopedic entry, and I will find the backing to be able to do it, whether you object or not. 172 06:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You actually think you can find support for not allowing any critique in a Wikipedia article? Go on, I will take it all the way to arbitration if required. Ultramarine 06:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of Arbitration, are you Libertas? 172 06:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, what are you asking? Ultramarine 06:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Libertas? You seem to be engaging in the same editing pattern on Communist-related articles. 172 07:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

No. Seems to be more interested in US politics.

Compromise with Ultramarine

I have created a new article for your text along the lines of criticisms of socialism at criticisms of communism so that we can keep your text while making this a standard encyclopedic entry on Communism as a movement at the same time. 172 10:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This would be appropriate on Wikinfo, but NPOV is policy on Wikipedia, thus all significant views need to be fairly represented including strong criticism. Fred Bauder 22:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The article already does, using the same format as socialism, which includes a similar "criticisms of socialism" spin-off. 172 | Talk 08:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf

There doesn't seem to be any attempt serious attempt in this article to address the main failing of communism or the human cost of said ideology. Specifically, the abuses of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are totally absent, which in any other wikipedia article would be considered a painful lapse. Original research is not necessary - the costs of Mao's in China, Stalin's in Russia and Pol Pot's in Cambodia are well documented. Although the specific numbers of millions are in dispute, that millions died as a direct result of communism is pretty crystal clear. As a consequence, this article is not whole in any sense.

Is it? Well, this concerns the ideology. There is criticisms at communist state, which deals with the attempts to practice it throughout history....plus you realise that a lot of communists are actually anarcho-communists and do not follow Marx but rather Kropotkin - hence, "failings" is attributed to "communist state" - the Marxist side, not the anarchist side (which tends to oppose a state). Anyhow, a lot of the criticisms have been moved to criticisms of communism, which was mentioned at both its section and at the top, I believe. -- Natalinasmpf 05:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

your not one of those communists who denies that many people died because of communist policies? Golie, I hate to break it to you...but governments do kill people...and the more you control the economic freedom of the people the more you end up taking away their rights...yeah... (Gibby 17:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

This is the article on the political movement and the ideology, not the regimes of China, Russia, Cambodia, etc. Please take a look at articles in encyclopedias such as Columbia, Encarta, and Britannica or sourcebooks such as the Oxford Dictationary of Politics, and you will see that their articles are similar to the rewrite, and nothing at all like the old article. 172 | Talk 06:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Why doesnt this article reflect that? Again, flawed logic! OR POV PUSH!!! (Gibby 18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

---

Regarding the anarcho-communists, yes I am aware. But they have never been nearly as notable enough to warrant the kind of treatment that they got in previous versions. Modern communism is almost always associated with Marx because Marxists have governed up to a third of the world's population, not the anarcho-communists. That's why anarcho-communists aren't even mentioned in the general article on communism in other sourcebooks. 172 | Talk 11:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As a result of attempting to practice communism, would be more accurate. It can be broached upon here, put into further detail in the two links above. This is just to make it concise. We tend to like articles staying under 30 KB, and without sacrificing detail, hence, branch them out and move off them to another article with a more specific topic (in this case, criticisms of communism).

"Communism in academia"

Ultramarine, do not dodge the issue of lack of relevancy of your section on "Communism in academia" with more hyperbole and inflammatory rhetorical questions. The place to discuss your recent headings would be under this heading. 172 | Talk 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, the dispute is over the new content you are posting in the "criticisms of communism" and "communism in academia" sections, not the rest of the article. So do not put up dispute tags as a tactic to retaliate personally against someone. 172 | Talk 16:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks and insinuations. If criticism is systematically deleted, then it affects the whole article. Ultramarine 16:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the factual accuracy, clean up, or original research headings. Further, there are POV-section headings. If a particular section bothers you, stick a POV-section tag under the heading, not the whole article. Now, the issue is the "communism in academia" section. That doesn't belong here given the subject matter, as it's a criticism of academia for being too friendly to leftists, not Communism per se. 172 | Talk 16:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

No, that is a minor issue. The main issue is why this article allows no more specific mention of the atrocities of the Communist states. Should an article about Nazism have no mention of the Holocaust? Ultramarine 16:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There are references throughout the article to Stalin's crimes, as there are throughout Britannica, Columbia, Encarta's entries, along with entries in sourebooks such as the Oxford Dictionary, e.g., After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union's new leader, Nikita Khrushchev admitted the enormity of the repression that took place under Stain. That aside, I am not disputing adding a lit review to the "criticism of communism" section; the problem is what you are adding. Your section dealing with the book on academia is not relevant here, as it's a polemic against academia not even close to being as well know as the works by major anticommunist writers such as Conquest. 172 | Talk 16:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that you not long ago created a page clinically free of any criticism of Communism, including deleting critical external links and links to other critical Wikpedia articles. See talk above. Why are you deleting this?

"Communism has been criticized both with empirical examples and theoretical arguments.

As communism entails the abolition of the state, a communist state is an impossibility according to communist theory. There have been, however, a large number of states ruled by self-declared Communist parties. Large scale human rights violations and democide occurred in these states as documented in extensive historical research, particularly during the regimes of Stalin and Mao, but are shown to have started immediately after the Russian revolution during the regime of Lenin and to have continued to occur in all communist states during their existence. The many abuses that occurred under these regimes have often been used as an argument against the ideology of communism itself, especially by anti-communists, citing for instance Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat". This is rejected by communists as a simplistic approach to historical events and ideas, noting that communism itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be related to the actions of 20th century states. Many anti-communists consider this a dodge of criticism that could similarly justify dismissing human rights violations under capitalism as not representative of the capitalist theory." Ultramarine 16:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

See below. What I replaced it with has just as much content, minus the self-evident, though much shorter. My issue is not with your opinions on communist economics. My issue is "economy of words" here. 172 | Talk 16:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you ready to accept the following as a replacement, which cuts down all the self-evident stuff, to your text above: Some writers such as Conquest go beyond attributing large-scale human rights abuses to Communist regimes, presenting Communist repression, particularly under Stalin, as an argument against the ideology of communism itself. 172 | Talk 18:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

172, Communism is not economics. It is a social theory. It is not economics. (Gibby 17:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Article protected

Because of the large number of reverts in the past few hours, I have protected this page. Please hammer out a compromise on this page. -- Viajero | Talk 16:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Changes

Another issue with Ultramarine seems to be the shortening of his writing below:

Communism has been criticized both with empirical examples and theoretical arguments.

As communism entails the abolition of the state, a communist state is an impossibility according to communist theory. There have been, however, a large number of states ruled by self-declared Communist parties. Large scale human rights violations and democide occurred in these states as documented in extensive historical research, particularly during the regimes of Stalin and Mao, but are shown to have started immediately after the Russian revolution during the regime of Lenin and to have continued to occur in all communist states during their existence. The many abuses that occurred under these regimes have often been used as an argument against the ideology of communism itself, especially by anti-communists, citing for instance Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat". This is rejected by communists as a simplistic approach to historical events and ideas, noting that communism itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be related to the actions of 20th century states. Many anti-communists consider this a dodge of criticism that could similarly justify dismissing human rights violations under capitalism as not representative of the capitalist theory.

However, notice how the following sentence essentially covers everything stated above without stating the self-evident: Some writers such as Conquest go beyond attributing large-scale human rights abuses to Communist regimes, presenting Communist repression, particularly under Stalin, as an argument against the ideology of communism itself.

Ultramine will have to discuss the particular changes to his writing, as opposed to making political accusations whenever someone modifies his work. 172 | Talk 16:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that you not long ago created a page clinically free of any criticism of Communism, including deleting critical external links and links to other critical Wikpedia articles. See talk above. This content is similar to that which hab been in the article for months before you deleted it. As such, it is up to you defend the deletions. Ultramarine 17:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not divert the issue by personalizing the dispute. Explain the changes in question right now do nothing more than making the version more concise than you had it. 172 | Talk 17:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the now protected versions is not that bad, since it at least mentions large-scale human right abuses, something your prior versions did not do only a few edits back.

Actually, I was mentioning it in the context of the 20th Congress of the CPSU all along. 172 | Talk 18:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Typical confusion

The additions of Ultramarine reflect a typical confusion (or deliberate red herring) in the Western world related to the usage of the word "communism". The overwhelming majority of criticism is related to the criticism of what is confusingly called "Communist state." While the criticism served its purpose, it is misdirected with respect to the current article: it is useless for attempts to understand what went wrong with seemingly nice idea of the desire towards the society of equal, free, working, altruistic people. And why an "unfair" society in which a person can be prosperous only by making other people work for him (with rare exceptions (rather confirming the rule)) turns out to be alive and kicking.

The polemical yell "Should an article about Nazism not have a mention of the Holocaust" misses the aim: Holocaust is proven to directly stem from the Nazist theory. If you want to criticize communism in the same way, you have to present a proof (but not your own, and not by sweeping references to a bunch of sovietologists or dissidents) that, e.g., the Great Purge directly followed from the communism theory. Yes, we know that attempts of implementation of communism led to atrocities. But a mere statement of the fact does not help to explain why did this happen. Without an attempt of explanation "why" it is not an encyclopedic article, but a mere political essay, one of the many, and no reason to waste the space (I know that Wikipedia is not paper, but readers are not computers, and waste lots of time reading the same political rant over and over again in various places). mikka (t) 17:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, some people can even take this further and claim holocaust was caused by capitalism. Oh, and before you nail me, read Wall street and the rise of Hitler please. You don't need to buy it, a PDF of the text float around online. Here is a good start. [1] Another interesting post follow below which basically argue that communism didn't fail since it was never practiced. [2]

Please do not confuse communism with socialism. Numerous critics have crticzed communism using the atrocities in Communist states. Thus, Wikipedia shuld not censor it. That critique may not be similarly applied to socialism in general, at least not in the same way. Ultramarine 17:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Reread Mikka's comments. He is not confusing communism and socialism. 172 | Talk 17:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, numerous critcts have used the large-scale atrocities in Communist states as evidence against Communinsm. Wikipedia should not censor their view. Ultramarine 17:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This argument is an exact kind of "And you are lynching Negroes". Once again: this kind of criticism is political bickering that explains nothing. Please read the article Communist state and understand that this criticism has nothing to do with criticism of communism for a very simple reason, communist states did not have communism. mikka (t) 19:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Censoring: please avoid slapping labels. The issue is not censorig, but proper arrangement of information. Some trigger-happy ardent anti-sovietists eager to put 20,000, 000 dead into each and every article about Soviet Union. Personally for you, there is a whole article, Criticisms of communism. So please tone down and try to work within a reasonable frame of presentation of information. mikka (t) 19:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, numerous critics have used the atrocities in Communist states to criticize communism. Their view should not be deleted from Wikipedia. The now protected version at least mentions it, which should be a minimum requirement.Ultramarine 19:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You're sounding like a bot. Your responses seem to have nothing to do with Mikka's comments. 172 | Talk 19:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please provide quotations where it is reasonably argued that that atrocities in Soviet Union are a direct consequence of the communism theory, just like Holocaust was an implementation of Nazist theories. Arguments of kind "commies killed a whole lot becase it is the nature of commies" or "commies are murderers, says Prof. Drillinghorse" will not do. mikka (t)

"Already famous throughout Europe, this international bestseller plumbs recently opened archives in the former Soviet bloc to reveal the actual, practical accomplishments of Communism around the world: terror, torture, famine, mass deportations, and massacres. Astonishing in the sheer detail it amasses, the book is the first comprehensive attempt to catalogue and analyze the crimes of Communism over seventy years.

"Revolutions, like trees, must be judged by their fruit," Ignazio Silone wrote, and this is the standard the authors apply to the Communist experience--in the China of "the Great Helmsman," Kim Il Sung's Korea, Vietnam under "Uncle Ho" and Cuba under Castro, Ethiopia under Mengistu, Angola under Neto, and Afghanistan under Najibullah. The authors, all distinguished scholars based in Europe, document Communist crimes against humanity, but also crimes against national and universal culture, from Stalin's destruction of hundreds of churches in Moscow to Ceausescu's leveling of the historic heart of Bucharest to the widescale devastation visited on Chinese culture by Mao's Red Guards.

As the death toll mounts--as many as 25 million in the former Soviet Union, 65 million in China, 1.7 million in Cambodia, and on and on--the authors systematically show how and why, wherever the millenarian ideology of Communism was established, it quickly led to crime, terror, and repression. An extraordinary accounting, this book amply documents the unparalleled position and significance of Communism in the hierarchy of violence that is the history of the twentieth century." [3] Ultramarine 07:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine, this article is intended to detail the ideology of communism. This is totally different from the bloody measures practiced by Stalin, Mao et al. Now if you can look through the writings of Marx and show me one passage where he advocates the mass murder of millions then I will concede your point that communist theory and practice are linked. However until then I suggest that you confine your editing to the views expressed by Marx and the resulting ideology. 172 and Mikka are perfectly correct in their comments. Criticisms of communism should be confined, in this article, to criticisms of communist theory, ie the writings of Marx and Engels. Fascism is an inherently power based ideology that led directly to the Holocaust and genocide. It cannot be argued that communism is in any way similar and that Stalin’s atrocities stem from fundamental Marxist beliefs. By all means the difficulty of implementing communism can be noted in the critique section but should not discolour the rest of the article.GreatGodOm 12:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine is correct in pointing out that some writers such as Conquest present Communist repression, particularly under Stalin, as an argument against the ideology of communism itself; and this is duly noted in the proper section of the article. The problem is that he seems unsatisfied with an encyclopedic arrangement of the information, and instead wants to base the entire article-- and just about every article related to communism-- around his own personal, idiosyncratic anticommunist reading list. 172 | Talk 12:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Characterizing Ultramarine's perspective as personal and idiosyncratic is a distortion of the situation. The article needs to address both the vision and projected practicality of a working communist society and economic system (as, for example, a sophisticated Trotskyist or other modern theorist might imagine) and the historical record which includes both the horrors cataloged in the Black Book of Communism and the achievements of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China and other Communist states. The ideology cannot be discussed apart from its historical context. Either those who tried to apply it got it horribly wrong, or only half right, or based on the lessons of practical experience something is terribly wrong with the ideology. Fred Bauder 13:35, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Implying that I do not favor discussing the ideology apart from its historical context is a distortion of my work and comments. The current article accomplishes this, making repeated reference to the crimes of Stalin and the failings of the Soviet Union. Also, implying that I am calling Ultramarine's perspective as personal and idiosyncratic is a distortion of my comments. As Mikkalai stated earlier, the issue is proper arragement of information, and what I would call idiosyncratic is the arragement of information in some of Ultramarine's edits. It was idiosyncratic, for example, for Ultramarine to create an entire section in the article based on one polemic against academics [4], even though that book is not nearly as well known as thw works of Arendt, Conquest, Pipes, et al, whom I myself made reference to in this article in my own edits. 172 | Talk 13:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

While I do think that book is very important, it deals only with scholars of American Communism and quite negatively (if accurately). Intellectuals, especially academics, do play an important role in maintaining enthusiasm for communist ideology. Support for the ideology from that quarter should be part of the article as should support from those elements of the working class, European unions, for example, which continue to form the bulk of the movement. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Since it only deals with scholars of American Communism, it makes more sense to mention it in a more specialized entry, like Communist Party USA. 172 | Talk 14:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are some other interesting books and articles. [5][6][7].

Okay. But bashing academia has nothing to do with this article. 172 | Talk 15:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, your 2 books and webpage represent the negative point of view about intellectual support of communism; however they must be balanced by views from the left such as Sartre's. This is not a winner-take-all game, but an attempt to present all significant views regarding a controversial subject. If we succeed in incorporating all significant points of view, we all win. Fred Bauder 22:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

May I remind you that even if Marx advocated the mass murder of millions, which he did not, Neither Lenin nor Karl Marx are the sole founders of communist theory, nor do they represent the communist movement and if anything Stalinism etc. stems from Marxist-Leninism, not communist theory under Kropotkin! Since these human rights abuses have only occurred in communist states, and only Marxist-Leninists advocate a communist state, while Kropotkinists do not! Hence, it should be seen as a critique of the communist state, or of Marxist-Leninism, not the communist ideal in itself. If anything, Kropotkin described mechanisms to actually achieve an ideal similar to a gift economy, while Marx ranted on about how revolution was inevitable...that's hardly theory. -- Natalinasmpf 14:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There is the matter of relevance in the general entry on communism. On one hand, Marxism-Leninism is the communist movement that ruled a third of humanity at one point. On the other hand, followers of Kropotkin are obscure. In proportion to the importance of Marxism-Leninism, anarcho-communism does not merit hardly any coverage here. 172 | Talk 14:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean, obscure? So, the Stalinist suppression of Kropotkinists has really worked, didn't it? They are as "obscure" as Trotskyists. They were the ones who, fought in the Spanish Civil War, then fought in Ukraine against the Soviet Union, fought in the Paris Commune, fought in the United States, Emma Goldman hardly being "obscure"...why do they not merit coverage? After all, it is the Kropotkinists who are the ones who have elaborated a great deal on how to reach the communist ideal, while all the Marxist-Leninists talk about is their "interim government", or "socialist transition stage". At one point, during the 1930's, the followers of Kropotkinists numbered in the millions, before being violently repressed by Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States. Especially since we are considering the theory and ideology here. -- Natalinasmpf 14:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, take it to the anarchism and anarcho-communism articles. 172 | Talk 02:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism has a separate Wikipedia entry and criticism. It has other problems, like the complete absence of any long-lived historic examples, despite numerous attempts, and the very much related question regarding how it should defend itself against internal and external aggressors. Communism in generally associated with Marxism. Ultramarine 15:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I am referring to communist theory. Communist theory, which this article deals with is the sibling/parent of anarchism, and hence critique for a communist state should be left at communist state, not communism. -- Natalinasmpf 15:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Communism will not be granted immunity to critique that easily. If necessarily, I just add another section for anarcho-communism or other sects that claims the name communism. Do not think that the short half-life of anarchist societies has prevented large scale human rights abuses, read for example this [8].Ultramarine 21:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Great. But before the article is unprotected, you should discuss your proposals for any additional changes and get feedback on them before another edit war breaks out. 172 | Talk 14:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that the current version may be acceptable, since it at least mentions large scale human rights abuses and has a link to the main article. Ultramarine 14:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to break it to ya'll...again. Communism and Nazism are just two different sides to the same coin. When you destroy economic freedoms you will always end up destroying political and civil freedoms. Both Nazis and Communists saught to control the economic freedom of their citizens...but for different reasons. One wanted to do it "for the people" the other wanted to do it to "protect big buisness and the worker" both did it because it allowed the elite to take and then retain control of the country with little help actually being provided to those they originally "promised" Both are totalitarian. Period! (Gibby 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Since when does communism destroy economic freedom? Anarchist communism, is anarchist and stresses individual freedom, and there are no elite cadres - and uses a gift economy. -- Natalinasmpf 19:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Early Communism

I have a famous book on my shelves, Bernstein's 'Cromwell & Communism', there are many articles about on Communism in the Early Church (look on the web, or Popper in 'The Open Society and its enemies), and British thinkers from Hill, Thompson to Benn have discerned the communist thread in movements from the Civil War onwards - how are these going to fit in an article which doesn't open up until Das Kapital?? I think we need to split the article radically. Linuxlad

Another detailed area that is not well covered is the communist theorists (including the anarchists but not limited to them) who were contemporary with Marx and Lenin but had different perspectives. Fred Bauder 16:56, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

See the main articles on Marxism and history of socialism, which are the articles that already deal with that topic. 172 | Talk 02:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Not too sure whom you're replying to here - in my book I can have a pre-industrial communist society, but socialism describes a relationship to the means of production, so isn't really appropriate to anything pre-factory-system...

Whether your suggestion is good or not, 172 is replying here because he is concerned with structuring of our articles as a whole. We need to keep articles reasonably brief and have the sort of information a reader is likely to be looking for. That is the question, if someone looks up "communism," what information should they find and what links should we present which refers them on to more detailed information. To most people communism means the Russian and Chinese experience. But that does not by any means exhaust the subject. Probably pre-industrial British communist societies belong in a specialized article. A sentence or two in this article can briefly mention the phenomenon and link to a more specialized article. Fred Bauder 12:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, the first section of this article already describes early communism with links to more specialized articles. 172 | Talk 14:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

But that goes to the root of the problem! Many of the British (and European?) left do NOT wish to see to see 'communism' in these (simplistic and constricting) terms!.

That is a point of view which could be appropriately included in the article (as can the "simplistic" "been there, tried that" view). Fred Bauder 14:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The article should not be made Eurocentric to appease some elements of the Western European left. Modern communism is associated with Marxism-Leninism because Marxist-Leninist parties ruled a third of humanity at one point and a quarter of humanity today. Adequate coverage of Communism in Russia, Eastern Europe, and East Asia is a far higher priority than coverage of a relatively tiny number of anarchist groups operating in Western Europe. 172 | Talk 22:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The essence of WP is intelligent synthesis. Bob aka Linuxlad

Anarchism

Yesterday, I wrote a new paragraph on anarchism. [9] The old version seemed to be based on the example of Kropotkin, though anarchism's relationship with the communist movement is more diverse, and historically more influential strains-- Bakuninism and anarcho-syndalism in the early 20th century-- ought to be addressed before Kropotkin. Further, I moved the paragraph from the intro into the body of the article. The communist thought of an often-overlooked anarchist should not be mentioned in the intro to an article on communism before perspective on Trotsky and the founders of the different schools of Marxism-Leninism of ruling Communist parties-- Stalin, Mao, Tito, Hoxha, and even Deng is established. (For decades the CPC has proclaimed "Deng Xiaoping theory" a development in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.) 172 | Talk 16:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

P.C. Socialism

Not to start a war here, but the definition of "communism" is NOT "the ideas of Karl Marx." That is the definiton of "Marxism."

Tend to agree here - but that seems to be the preferred stateside perspective. I think most European socialists would see communism as well predating Marx. But it may be as well to go with the flow now, qualifying the time period of principal interest (as post-Marx) appropriately, but adding to the early communism section (at least) with links out. We have _nothing_ on communistic thought in the French Revolution, an obvious omission, especially given its well-documented influence on Marx ; and Mao's famous comment when asked on the importance of the French Revolution - 'it's too soon to say'! Bob aka Linuxlad

Obviously I'm biased in my opinion as a Marxist, but to me Communism is the ideas first proposed by Marx and their derivatives. Scientific socialism as opposed to utopian socialism. I disagree that early commune societies could be classified as communist (trying to keep outside historical materialism theory here), to me a more accurate description would simply be "communal". For most of communist history Marxism has been the dominant communist theory but, while I of course recognise that there have been other strands of thought that developed around the same time (thinking particularly of Mikhail Bakunin here), all schools of proletariat thought are aware of themselves and their position in society - unlike primitive or religious societies which had no concept of class struggle. GreatGodOm 10:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly there's plenty of room for pointless debate here. Why don't we agree (as I thought we had) that this article is for communism post-Marx but that it refers out (in 'early communism') to what some clearly see as 'communist' societies. (It matters clearly when capitalism and the ownership of the means of production comes on the scene. But I'd always taken that idea as the pre-requisite for 'socialism' So you can have a communist agrarian society but not a socialist one). But in the end, as long as we describe the beast, who cares what it's called. The trouble with your use of the word communal is that it already has a clear meaning, and that does not include the key _economic_ idea of 'from each according to their means to each according to their needs' Linuxlad

Economics is not a process that ends itself to arrive at natural human ecology. All this "from each" and "to each" accounting just isn't how poor people talk to each other. I have to say, upper-class people are simply not capable of defining "communism." To say that a few persons of petty-bourgois family origin are "enlightened" and write against their class interests is to make the ad hominem fallacy. It is easy to show that the "Marxist" idea of collective property is a form of property relations, and therefore not communist.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry

So maybe I'll just do both. I found these two quotes on a website somewhere, and I don't mean to divert any attention from the former argument, but anyone interested in politics has to see this laughably ironic comparison. Would this qualify Hillary for the List of Communists??

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."

-Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the

Communist Party

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."

-Hillary Clinton, 1993

I liked the pair so much that I posted them on my User page. Marx's dream of a worldwide revolution hits too close to home for comfort! Salva 19:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Invitation by Kewp regarding changes

What is there to discuss?

All that I did was to change things that are obvious mistakes. Like, for example, Communism is not a movement, but a social system. The term "Communist state" is really an oxymoron, as there will be no state in a communist society. The Soviet Union was actually officially Socialist (hence Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). North Korea does not even have a communist party. Communism is, according to the Marxist definition, not a movement based on "communal ownership of all property". That is simply completely false. I feel it would be easier if you would point out what you want to discuss. Thanks.

Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, but around a quarter of the world's population still lives under Communist rule.'

Again I thought this page was about the idealogy, not the the regimes. By saying that a quarter of the worlds population live under communism you are obviously including China in this. I would call China a single party state, a dictatorship or one of many things. But not Communist. Not to mention the special administrative regions (There's more regulation of the free market in the USA than Hong Kong), in my travels around China I have yet to see *anything* even remotely resembling what this communist idealogy represents, in everywhere in China I have travelled. Again I would call it a Police State, whatever.... but Communist? PUH LEASE.

"Puh lease" spare us your personal opinions. Please click on Wikipedia:No original research so that I don't have to type out what so many have already stated again and again. 172 | Talk 00:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Communist Countries

I see a very little info on fall of Berlin Wall and communism in East Europe. For example no socialist Yugoslavia is mentioned, altough this seems to be one of the most sucesfull communisms until 1991.

Also, last communist country in Europe was Milosevics Yugoslavia, until 5th October 2000 and also Ethiopia with Derga regime was communist country until 1999 I think (see Ethiopian history)

As much as these seems unimportant, it is. --Rastavox 01:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The "fall of the Berlin Wall" is mentioned, but details are found in related articles (try the history of Germany series). Tito's Yugoslavia is mentioned... Just to add to what you are saying, the extent to which socialist Yugoslavia was a "success" has been dramatically called into question retrospectively by the events unfolding after 1991... Also, another correction. Milosevic's Yugoslavia is outside the domain of this article. His regime was not "communist" like China, Vietnam, Cuba, et al. today in the sense that the state was not embedded in a Communist party with a constitutionally-designated monopoly on political power... The same is the case with Ethopia. 172 | Talk 23:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Alienation, French Revolution

Someone reverted two changes I made last night, without courtesy of a comment. French Revolution - we clearly need some reference to this since it (and the English Civil War) takes up a fair junk of Marx' (and Marxist) view of history. Alienation - is NOT a natural human condition but has arisen under the strains of capitalism - at least that's what I learnt from the ex-IMG members I knew, and it fits with a quick google. If no satisfactory explanation for the deletion or better offering on these issues I shall revert. Linuxlad

That might be your view, but the article's talking about Marx. Capitalizing the word "not" isn't going to convince anyone; you'll need to present texual evidence from the relevant primary (the works of Marx and Engels) and secondary sources. 172 | Talk 22:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well on this basis ALL reference to alienation should probably come out (its use in early Marx is pretty diffuse and it disappeared all together in later work, I read. Also the article is about Communism :-)). I'm glad to see you're the arbitor of intellectual rigour here, though self-appointed. I remind you again that WP moves by mutual communication and intelligent compromise. Bob aka Linuxlad

Progress report - Alienation - not had time to really chase this up, (but lets start with p33 of McLellan's Marx which short and about my level :-)). Nonetheless, someone has made a fairly sensible edit which goes someway to removing the bald and implausible initial statement.

Now, what are we going to say about the French Revolution, a key event in Marx' thinking, nowhere mentionned in this master work???:-)) Linuxlad

Natalinasmpf

Re: Natalinasmpf (what do you mean it's not universally accepted? It's a new term, no doubt, but the same principle. Free giving -> communism) Please keep new terms out of the opening sentences. The language of the article should match the terms used by-- and used by others to describe-- the communist movements that were among the central actors shaping the course of modern history... Some might find the views held by the tiny new anarchist groups that advocate some sort of 'commmunist' society in recent years interesting, but they do not warrant such prominent attention in this article-- the most general of surveys on the political movement that little over a decade ago ruled over a quarter of humanity. 172 | Talk 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What tiny new anarchist groups? For goodness sake, a gift economy is the type of society advocated by people from Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman. In effect, it is a larger type of economy that is [i]partially used[/i] in many contexts, from family to certain societies, but also a universal society. The pure gift economy is the end result advocated by Marx, after a period of socialism, and which anarchists call for immediate installment without the transition phase. It matches the terms all the same. There is no article for "communal ownership", but there is an article for gift economy. The term gift economy doesn't even APPEAR in the introduction, it's merely used as a synonym which the link points to the gift economy article. Heck, we could use a redirect if we wanted to. The effect is the same: it appears as "communal ownership", it links to "gift economy". We have an article on it. The word "communal ownership" is unlinked. Therefore, I link it. -- Natalinasmpf 23:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Spare me the original research. Show me the text where they call their program the exact phrase "a gift economy." The term is recent, mostly used in the context of discussions on free software these days. The notion that the terms are synonymous appears to be your extrapolation. 172 | Talk 23:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

They of course do not, having their theories being in Russian/German and other languages. It is a different term for the [b]same concept[/b]. It therefore qualifies, just as "depression" is being used for "melancholy". The difference here, is that melancholy has a separate article of its own, to explain past use, but communal ownership is roughly equivalent of a gift economy. The idea of "communal ownership" - the same term is being used, but I'm merely linking it to a concept of a gift economy. No, the term of gift economy did not originate with free software, although that is it's popular use. Mind you, anti-communist writers and communist writers similarly did not use many of the economic phrases we use today, but yet it's included in articles referring to communism or socialism, or libertarianism. The inclusion is justified, it's merely a different term for the same concept. -- Natalinasmpf 00:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Again you are merely stating your own conjectures or "original research." The term "gift economy" is still rare in most discourse on communism. Unless you back up your ideas with a source, it's going to have to be removed. 172 | Talk 22:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit War NWOG vs. 172

I believe NWOG's version is better. The 172 overuses the term communist in an POV manner. (I do not really know who originated the competing versions.) The text reads like western anti-communist propaganda with the word communist or commie used in the meaning of "enemy" or "suspect". In describing communism and socialism we should use the terms used by the protagonists themselves. (This does not mean endorsement of their policies or ideology.)

The NWOG version has defects. It does not incoperate the latest improvements and corrections. These include:

• Russian Revolution -> Russian Revolution of 1917, October Revolution

These corrections should be incorperated in the NWOG version.

Thank you. I try to keep it as objectively as possible. I am a little confused when you mention Russian Revolution, etc. Would you be so kind to edit what you feel should be incorporated? Thank you :)NWOG

The 172 version is technically better. I suggest you incorporate your differences to this version. Be critical of your POV. Leave "Criticism of communism" and "form of society and as a popular movement" as they stand. -- Petri Krohn 03:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Anarchist communism

I do not know if this is the core issue of the edit war, but I believe the reference to Anarchist communism (excluded in the NWOG version) should be included. We can not exclude everything that does not fit a strict Marxist-Leninist view of sosialism.

-- Petri Krohn 23:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

It was most likely a mistake. I have now added it to the list. The core issue (for me at least) is the wrong use of terms. For example, 172's article describe North Korea as a communist party state, but North Korea does in fact not have a Communist Party. There are three parties in North Korea and none of them is a Communist Party. The largest party is the Korean Worker's party.

Not all Communist parties are named "the Communist Party." The Korean Worker's Party is one of them, as it still officially maintains that the realization of communism is the ultimate goal of the party. 172 | Talk 20:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Then there is the fact that Communism is not "communal ownership of all property". Those things, and more, created the two different versions. Some of the things in 172's version go as far that in a similar situation he might have called sailors of the 16th century, "space explorers".

This point about sailors and space explorers is unclear... While I take issue with your point on what communism is not, I do think that it would be more clear to define it as the common ownership of the means of production in the opening sentences. 172 | Talk 20:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the books "The State and Revolution" and "Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism" under the category "Online resources for original communist literature", because these are very important works in Marxist theory. I think "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State" by Frederick Engels, and "Wage Labour and Capital" by Karl Marx should be added. These are also two very important works. NWOG

They certainly are quite important. 172 | Talk 20:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

"This Godles Communism" comic book

Although somewhat interesting, it is not original communist literature. And as such, it might be proper to move it. But to where? NWOG

Communism is a movement

Well, in the preface to the The Communist Manifesto it says that it at least used to be a movement. Back in 1847:

Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement.

and further down:

Socialism in 1847 signified a bourgeois movement, communism a working-class movement.

See here for links to the quotes.

But maybe it has ceased to be a movement since then? Shanes 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Marx and Engels also used the words "socialism" and "communism" to describe the same thing, although more or less every marxist today see them as two different social systems. The Communist Manifesto was also written before Marx and Engels had fully developed marxism. NWOG

Huh? In the quote above (actually from as late as 1888) Engels clearly uses different words as they were different movements. He describes communism as a movement for the working-class, while socialism was a bourgeois movement. Anyway, I digged up the quote since you in an edit-comment claimed Communism to not even be a movement and made the article having that claim a reason for reverting, and I found that a bit strange. Unless, of course, it has later ceased to be a movement, which was my question. Has it? Shanes 15:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The quotations picked up from Google are way too vague. One has to pay close attention to cite the original texts when discussing Marx's use of the terms "socialism" and "communism." How Marx distinguishs the two terms and how his ideas developed from his early work in the 1840s to his late work in the early 1880s has been subject to considerable debate even as far back as his lifetime. 172 | Talk 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

merge/split with "History of communism"

Communism and History of communism are heavily overlapped, to the level dangerously approacing outright forking. It is against wikipedia policy. I suggest to make a section "History of communism" here that would start with the "Main article: [[]]" clause and contain only summary of the history. mikka (t) 00:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are overlapings. But, communism and the history of communism are very different things. The overlapings are a result of poor articles themselves, and should be fixed. The communism article should be more about well... communism, and not the history of communism... Communism is a current movement still, not a historical factoid-- Between 1/6 and 1/5 of the world's population is in a communist state, it is pretty erronous that the communism article focuses on communism as some kind of history... I'm more for taking the long histories out of the communism article, it seems to be more of a USSR related article anyway... Communism should be focused about... yes, again, communism.--So Hungry 03:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a real problem here - many European socialists see 'communism' as part of an evolving tradition, in which the role of the USSR is a significant part but by no means the whole. Like all such WP matters, we can either agree a working compromise, or we can bumble forward and wreck each other's contributions :-) Linuxlad 08:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC) (Oh, and why no reference yet to the French Revolution - see earlier)

There is indeed a overlap. But Linuxlad hit the nail right on the head in pointing out the problem with So Hungry's suggestion that we disregard the history in communism. I'd only dispute one of Linuxlad's points: it's not just European socialists who see communism as part of an evolving tradition. The statement that the history of the communist movement determined how it would branch off into different ideological schools (Stalinism, Trotskyism, Titoism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, etc.) is an undisputable claim. Hence other encyclopeida articles on communism, like Encarta's [10], are based on similar structures discussing the variations among all the schools of communism that have emerged along with the historical developments... The problem lies in the history of communism entry (a cut-and-paste weave from various Wikipedia histories of Communist countries), not here. The overlap problem would be solved if the history article focused on the effects of Communist Party organization and mass mobilization, tracing the political triumps and defeats of the world Communist movement over time. 172 | Talk 19:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

172 | Talk 19:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Consistency

From the 2nd paragraph

"In the late 19th century, Marxist theories motivated several social democratic parties in Europe, although their policies later developed along the lines of reforming capitalism rather than overthrowing it"

This section needs changing a little. Marxist influenced parties sprang up across Europe and its only Britain were the major socialist party was not avoudley Marxist. The Social democratic links to wiki peage Social democracy. This page clearly states that social democracy represents the reformist (also called 'revisionist') tendency that developed in the late 19th/early 20th century. Also before the policies changed they were openly revolutionary, anyone clicking on the link will think otherwise. I propose for consistency changing the sentance too:

"In the late 19th century, Marxist theories motivated socialist parties across Europe, although their policies later developed along the lines of reforming capitalism rather than overthrowing it"

Any objections? TheInquisitor 13:15, 1 Oct 2005

It's not really a major issue, though it's probably a better idea to speak with a level of qualification, as the sentence is specified very broadly with respect to place and time. 172 | Talk 20:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the article gives the impression that Lenin's party just suddenly decided to up and leave, splitting communists from socialists. It makes no mention of the fact that they basically had no choice, as they were pretty much the only party in the international that opposed the world war. Most parties supported their government's position on the war, rather than calling for a unity of workers against the war. This is what caused the split.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 20:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Early Christian Church

The words in Acts of the Apostles ch2 vv44-45 are taken by many (including Popper IIRC) to signify more than just 'communal living'. I have edited. (I've left the Native NA Indians in in the same sentence but don't know if common ownership is attributable to their society also). Bob aka Linuxlad 16:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I got your last note on my talk page. Earlier I assumed you were going to revert my recent edits entirely. Instead you just inserted a clarification. I see nothing wrong with it, though I'm hardly anywhere remotely close to being an expert on the Bible. Thanks for seeking my input. 172 | Talk 20:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

OK - well as I've said, the name of the game is compromise. I may also slightly titivate the Cromwell bit slightly (it differs in nuance somewhat from what I'd intended) - but will just recheck my Bernstein (& Christopher Hill) etc first.Bob aka Linuxlad

China

As of today, saying that China revaluated Maoisim is an understatement. They have effectivly renounced all his policies and their current neo-con regime defines itself by nationalisim, very similar to Cheng Kai Shek. In many ways, modern China is more right wing than left

It also runs free trade zones. A point that should be made clear on how communism has "evolved" with the times. (Gibby 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Criticisms section

The section on criticism is clearly too short. It just lists a number of people that criticised communism, but doesn't say what they criticised about communism. If you compare this with Capitalism, you'll see that the latter has a huge and quite exhaustive chapter on criticism of capitalism. For the sake of neutrality and balance, this article should also develop its criticism section. Luis rib 13:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The capitalism article is an unwieldy mess. It is the capitalism article that needs work, and some concision in its bloated criticisms section, not this article in this case. Further, the two articles are structured differently, leaving nothing that really needs balancing. This article largely avoids the "supporters say, critics say" babble of the capitalism article by considently bringing up negative information in each section, such as the crimes of the Stalinist USSR in the section under Stalinism. The main difference, though, is that no one has gotten around to starting the criticisms of capitalism article, which is going to happen sooner or later. Here we already have a quite detailed criticisms of communism aricle linked to the section. 172 | Talk 14:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The capitalism article may have its own problems, but at least it's not a lavish hymn like this one. Where does this one contain "negative information"? The crimes of Stalinism are barely mentioned; economic criticism of communism is virtually missing. There may be a link to a Criticism of communism, but that's not enough. It just puts all the negative elements into another page instead of at least mentionning them on this one. Luis rib 15:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In the concluding remarks on Soviet Communism, which I have ensured remains the focus of this article as the most historically significant political expression of communist ideology (as you can see in this talk page, I have been quite vigilent against neo-communist POV-pushers who would wish to do otherwise), the article, states, e.g.: However, under Stalin's leadership, evidence emerged that dented faith in the possibility of achieving communism... Stalin had created in the Soviet Union a repressive state that dominated every aspect of life. After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union's new leader, Nikita Khrushchev admitted the enormity of the repression that took place under Stalin. Later, growth declined, and rent-seeking and corruption by state officials increased, which dented the legitimacy of the Soviet system. This article clearly leaves the impression of quite an unattractive, to say the least, political and ideological system. 172 | Talk 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I read that part. Yet what bothers me is that Stalinism is made responsible for most of the crimes, even though repression continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course Stalinism was much worse than other eras of the Soviet Union, yet repression existed right from the start and right until the end. Another point: If communism is to be thought in opposition of capitalism, shouldn't it be treated as an economic system as well, with a discussion of its merits and flaws? Luis rib 22:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The economic system would be socialism and state planning. Criticism of the Soviet economy can be found in criticisms of socialism. 172 | Talk 00:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with criticisms of communism - and the reason why we have a separate article - is that there are so many of them. Take a casual look over Criticisms of communism: ignoring the POV dispute, that article is at least as long as this one. When the criticisms section of something gets as big as the rest of the article put together, that is usually a good sign that it needs to be broken off. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 06:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, I see no Criticisms of Nazism article, and there isn't even a criticisms section in the main Nazism article. Perhaps your efforts would be better spent there... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 06:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the article on Nazism does not support nazism; insofar the article itself is already critical of Nazism and there is no need to have a separate section on criticism. Luis rib 13:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Marxist theory on property

The section titled "Marxist theory on property" should be removed. It's an anti-communist opinion, is poorly written, and is also inaccurate. The Marxist position on private property is that it should not exist in a communist society, but, in a socialist society, only certain industries would be socialized. Generally, the goal would be to collectivise key industries first.

Also, Communist movements outside of Europe have included land reform into their platforms. That is a redistribution of private property to peasant farmers, for subsistence. In effect, they advocate for the creation of a large petit-bourgeois, or "middle class," as a transitional phase.

Also, in the last paragraph, "It is argued that these the criticisms of communism are valid arguments against certain communist parties, and that not all of them are valid against communism." So, the critics of the critics are saying that the arguments against communism really aren't arguments against communism, but against specific parties. That's illogical! The arguments are made against both. This is similar to "capitalists" who say that criticism against capitalism is strictly criticism against capitalism as it exists, and not a "pure capitalism". Hogwash. It's criticism of both capitalism in practice and as a theory.

The article should focus on the history of Communism rather than the theory, except where the theory is necessary to understanding the history.

66.245.214.143 14:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We have a article on the history of Communism for a reason, so this article should focus on all aspects of Communism, and saying that we should favour the history in this article rather than the theory. Is there any reson for this view? --The1exile 18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Socialism, communism, and phases

The article states:

"In the last half of the nineteenth century the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels came to see socialism as an intermediate stage of society in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. They reserved the term communism for a final stage of society in which class differences had disappeared, people lived in harmony, and government was no longer needed."

Marx and Engels never made such a distinction between socialism and communism (that was Lenin). Nor did they suggest there would be two phases as can be clearly seen by reading chapter one of Critique of the Gotha Programme. Hydrostatic 16:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no discussion on this subject and no attempt to fix the error, I've removed the offending section which consisted of three paragraphs beginning with the above quote. Hydrostatic 17:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hammer n' sickle?

I'm not a longstanding contributor to this page, but I'm a bit put out at seeing the ol' Hammer & Sickle as the dominant (first, top, and most prominent) image on the page.

Let me just pop over to Capitalism and... no, no U.S. flag there.

Socialism? A red flag.

Facism? No Nazi, or Italian, or any other flag. Sort of a stick thingy.

So why does Communism get saddled with a (in many Westerners' eyes) perjorative and single-nation-specific image?

If I'm wrong and it's NOT a state-specific image (for instance, if it was an international image the USSR adopted on their flag), maybe we should say that.

Maybe change the colors. Yellow on red does look too much like the USSR flag. What about black on white? —R. Koot 17:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just my two-cents. I think the flag is inappropriate as well

--24.91.136.214

- The sickle and hammer is not a state-specific symbol. It is a worldwide representation of communism as an idealogy. Even some socialists use the image. The colors themselves are symbolic. Red on black typically represents anarchist communism (black represents anarchism). Red is a worldwide symbol for socialism. Yellow...Well, I'm not sure what yellow represents.

Under the Comintern

The version of this section prior to the Revision as of 03:35, 9 December 2005 contains (IMHO) historical inaccuracies, or at best reflects only a particular point of view. The Revision as of 03:35, 9 December 2005 was made to correct the problems with the prior versions. Unfortunately, the Revision as of 09:16, 9 December 2005 reverted to the previous (flawed) statements.

Among the problems of the version prior to the Revision as of 03:35, 9 December 2005 are these:

1. Was the intention of the Bolsheviks "to build socialism on a large scale" ? This assumes the correctness of Stalin's theory of Socialism in One Country

Was that not their goal set out in their campaign? -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

2. "Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place" Evidence from Marx please? Note the statement says "revolutions" not "socialism".

I'm not going to post a literature essay here - but it is fairly accurate - it is the entire concept of social Darwinism - Marx states (or implies) that one cannot have a communist revolution in a feudalistic society. Russia of course...was sort of like a feudalistic society. -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

3. "it was necessary for the communists, according to their ideological mission, to create a working class itself." Huh?

In Russia, there was no urban working class. The Bolsheviks had to firstly industrialise the nation, then to create a working class. Which is rather Machiavellian, but it was supposedly a step to revolution. -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

4. "For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks had opposed Lenin's communist Bolsheviks in their demand for socialist revolution before capitalism had been established." This assumes that capitalism had not been established in Russia. Second it assumes that the October revolution was "socialist revolution" (Read Lenin's "The Threatening Catastrophe and How to Fight it" as well as "Two Tactics of Social Democracy" for Lenin's justifications for the working class taking power. Third, the statement in question claims that the reason for the Menshivik's opposition to the Bolshevik revolution was adherence to an alleged theory by Marx in point number 2 above.

Russia was not industrialised. -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

5. The section states that "the 1917 October Revolution, led by Lenin's Bolsheviks, raised significant theoretical and practical debates on communism among Marxists themselves." which is entirely true. However, the article is silent on the well documented debate which did take place over the question of socialism in one country.

It isn't silent - it explains it later on - you should read the rest of the article. Furthermore, it goes as far as to explain the schism between the anarchists and the Marxists. -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am reverting section to the changes I had made.

Note to Natalinasmpf:

You have twice removed my text. I noticed that you have also removed the text of "Intimidated" 4 times. Please let us avoid an edit war. I have stated some of my objections to the existing text, and your response was merely "I think consensus would dictate that this edit concerning history of communism has a weaker style and neutrality than its predecessor". I disagree with your alleged consensus. However, even if my edits were weaker style, and are less neutral (which I dispute) I think we need to first deal with the factual issues. We can work on resolving the point-of-view neutrality issues after that.

Please look again at my point number 2 above. You make a statement about Marx's theory, i.e. that according to Marx, revolution would first break out in the advanced capitalist countries. Can you provide any documentation that this was Marx's theory?

On the contrary, Marx wrote (in 1882):

"can the Russian commune, this form of the original common ownership of land which is actually already in a state of severe disintegration, make the direct transition into a higher communist form of landed property — or must it first undergo the same process of dissolution that characterises the historical development of the West? The only possible answer to this question today is as follows: when the Russian revolution gives the signal for a workers’ revolution in the West, so that each complements the other, then Russian landed property might become the starting point for a communist development.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

Clearly, if Marx believed that the Russian revolution might "give the signal" for workers revolution in the West, he could not have simultaneously believed that the revolution in the West must precede the Russian revolution.

On item 3, please give your evidence.

After we deal with these items, we can deal with the others. Until, then, I have posted a disputed tag. I will change that to a point-of-view tag when we resolve items 2 and 3.

I really have a problem with your tone. It sounds like you were telling a story, as opposed to writing an encylopedia. It also overwrites many details which were legitimate. -- Natalinasmpf 20:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to Natalinasmpf:

Hi,

Please do not remove the "disputed" tag from the page again. I am requesting mediation. The article in question makes a statement about Marx's theory. I have presented evidence that the statement in question is incorrect. You have not provided any evidence to support it. The rest of the section in question "flows" from this incorrect statement.

I have not embedded any comments in my previous note because I find that confusing.

Regarding item 3, you have responded to my objection that you have provided no verifiable sources to back your claim, with a new claim, i.e. that there was no urban proletariat in Russia in 1917. That claim is similarly unsubstantiated.

Regarding item 2, you again have not provided any evidence, but make the claim that it is "fairly accurate". However, it is precisely the inaccuracies that provide support to the non-neutral point of view regarding the Russian Revolution. Let us try to remove the inaccuracies or a neutral point of view will have a hard time emerging.

-- 24.91.136.214

I did not say "no" urban proleteriat. It is argued there was very little, which is really the truth. That is not my argument, although I am defending the article's statement. This is the consensus of which has been determined by the community - in fact, problems are regarded as to the criticisms section, NOT the history section. As for "fairly accurate" For goodness sake, when you are paraphrasing someone, it is obvious that you won't copy them word for word. First thing, register an account. I would honestly be glad to provide you tons of sources, but it is 6 in the morning and I will leave the task to someone else. If it was later I would be glad to show you the evidence, but for now I will reassure (in vain) you with assertions. -- Natalinasmpf 21:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

note to Natalinasmpf:

The claim about Marx's theory is not "fairly accurate". It is quite inaccurate. The inaccuracy provides support for a great deal of non-neutral point of view stuff that follows. This will become obvious the sentence that reads:

 "Marx's theory had presumed that revolutions would occur where capitalist development was the most advanced and where a large working class was already in place." 

is changed to the historically accurate statement

 "Marx and Engels believed that a Russian revolution could be signal for workers' revolutions in the west"

He never targeted Russia specifically. He didn't want revolution in one country as "inspiration" - as well as the fact that he was most likely would have concentrated on France or Germany if not for the military disaster of the Paris Commune. -- Natalinasmpf 22:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Note to Natalinasmpf:

You have changed the statement:

 "Marx and Engels believed that a Russian revolution could be signal for workers' revolutions in the west"

to read "Most Marxists believed...". We know that the statement with regard to Marx and Engels is correct because Marx and Engels signed a document to that effect. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm#preface-1882

How would we know what "most Marxists" thought? Was there a poll conducted? We could guess, but it would only be a guess. Why did you change it from a statement with a verifiable source, to one that has no verifiable source?

The entire narrative in this section is, in my humble opinion, seriously flawed. It is unsupported by evidence, has a non-neutral point of view, and in my opinion factually wrong. However, since you have not permitted me to change this section, it is my aim to introduce facts which contradict that narrative, and then put the onus on you to reconcile the narrative of that section with the facts. For that purpose, the statement about what Marx and Engels said is far more important than what "Most Marxists" believed, because the following sentence is (an unsupported statement) about "Marx's theory". I am thus reverting to "Marx and Engels" rather than "Most Marxists" and I hope you will leave that fact as it is, and edit the unsupported claims that surround it.

--24.91.136.214

"Free Trade" Communists

This text has been repeatedly inserted and repeatedly removed. I don't think it belongs in the article. It is outside the scope of the article and it is a very circular argument. Free Trade Zones in China contradict communism as a theory, it claims. But how do we know that there is conmmunism in China? Because the Chinese Government says so, and why would the Chinese Government lie about a thing like that?! Anyhow, if this is to be added, the reason for adding it needs to be explained. Mattley ^(Chattley) 17:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What seems to be contradictory to communism as a theory are the Free Trade Zones currently operating in China, the largest self described communist nation in the world. Communist China runs some of the most free market oriented regions in the world, including Hong Kong which is regarded by the Hoover Institute as the most free economy in the world (see http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=HongKong).

China's Free Trade Zones have few restrictions upon buisnesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties. These Free Market Zones are regions of explosive growth and have contributed to China's high growth rate over the last two decades.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." (from http://www.china.org.cn/english/MATERIAL/21966.htm)

This certainly doesn't belong in the article. A reference to how the Chinese government is implementing elements of capitalism does. Palmiro | Talk 17:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Plus, this is either a copyvio, or it is totally in the wrong tone, as it is not encylopedic and fails to cite it as a reference, as opposed to merely "from". -- Natalinasmpf 17:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Needs to be left alone. Fits in fine with the article helps show how communism has "evolved" as a theory to accep things that are often seen as contradictory to its most basic assumptions.

Free trade zones do not seem to get mentioned on the China page or the economics of china page...but at least deserve mentioning here.

Has been deleted several times by a radical communist purist for POV reasons. (Gibby 05:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

See here Nati to discuss our disagreement. (Gibby 09:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

To the editor who has been inserting the section "free trade communists," please read Wikipedia's content guidelines at WP:MOS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV. Your section is a start to a personal essay, and is not encyclopedic. 172 15:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm starting to think POV is an excuse to delete things in which people have a POV. If you guys are unfamiliar with citing sources, you can begin a sentence, insert the source, quote the source, and you have made no violation. Its called a quotation people.

The tone is fine. If you dont think it is, edit it so the tone is fine. You've failed to demonstrate that.

The section is not circular reasoning. It simply stated facts. Communism does not believe in Free Markets. A self described communist country runs the most free market region in the world. This communist country has 15 free trade zones with few restrictions and regulations upon buisness.

The section needs to be in there. (Gibby 17:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

If you have Stalinism in there (which for you hardcore communists who like to deny the horrors of communism as it existed) is not a communist form of government, then free market communist is equally as vald to be on this page. Your logic is flawed as to why it should not be allowed.

(Gibby 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

The section is about *one* supposedly communist country. We are already covering China's history. Why do we need another section? It's already covered in the History of the People's Republic of China. You're sticking redundant info in the wrong place. It's already quite an obvious fact. If you cite sources, you do it in totally a different format. Ignore this format and it's a copyright violation. Also, please put try to put everything you mean in one comment, to avoid edit conflicts. True communists don't deny the horrors of Stalinism, but assert that it isn't communism, yes. "Free trade communists" is a totally disjunct and dissonant section, and sounds like an argumentative essay. -- Natalinasmpf 18:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Then we should delete the sections on troitsykism, stalinism, maoism, as those are revisionist communist theories specific to countries. Last I checked in the china page it made no mention of free trade zones. maybe i missed it but i doubt it.

I propose the deletion of all non original communist revisions to fit in the spirit of Natali's complaints. This is either a page about communism period. Or a page that shows communism and what communism has become. Please pick one or the other but do not claim it is one and demonstrate that it is another.

(Gibby 18:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

And where was the consensus on deletion? Hypocrites! (Gibby 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

These are not my complaints, but 172's as well. Check History of the People's Republic of China - maybe because CHINA isn't the same as the PRC. China => cultural land. PRC => country. May I remind you China has been split into two...Stalinism, Maoism etc. are written in an encyclopedic tone - the current material you write is already covered under state capitalism. -- Natalinasmpf 18:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Your flawed logic cannot explain away why you accept revisionism specific to countries but not another. My section has no POV, with each deletion I changed it more and more to reflect that. This page needs to mean what you say it is. To date, your logic is seriously flawed. Please provide better explinations, or better yet, try editing my section to reflect a NPOV...if it does not already. Either way, it belongs or all the other sections do not. In which case I suggest making a EVOLUTION OF COMMUNISM page to place those in.

User:KDRGibby, your section on China has elicited comment from five editors, yourself, me, User:Natalinasmpf, User:172 and User:Palmiro. All comments have been objections except for those made by yourself. This is a pretty good indication that your changes do not have consensus support. You are misrepresenting the situation at other talk-pages [11]. Why? You state above The section is not circular reasoning. It simply stated facts. Communism does not believe in Free Markets. A self described communist country runs the most free market region in the world. This is indeed circular reasoning. You assume that China is is a manifestation of communism with no evidence to support this except the alleged assertion of the Chinese government and against the evidence that China departs in fundamental ways from the model of 'socialist' states. Are you serious? Mattley ^(Chattley) 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have made no claim that China is any sort of manifestation of communism merely, as following the logic of the page, a manifestation of the evolution of communism. Stalinism, Maoism, Tbonism, they arent really communism, as enviosioned by Marx, yet they get that rhetorical distinction. If you are going to include 4 of them why not the most recent? Aka a 5th? Furthermore, I stated that China was a self described communist state, reflecting that it is so far removed from original communist theory that it can only be communist rhetorically. You still have no valid point.

The question is...Are you all serious?

(Gibby 18:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

NPOV

Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias.

The article as currently written refers to

"Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale"

In English usage, the term communism with a small 'c' refers not to the practice of a particular Communist Party, but to a form of social organization which has been variously characterized.

According to some followers of certain Communist Partys (with a capital 'C'), there was an attempt to build socialism and/or communism (with small letters) in Russia.

However, according to another point of view, neither communism nor socialism were built in the Soviet Union, and that claims to that such were built were merely pretexts to justify the rule of a privileged bureaucracy.

One may disagree regarding whether Stalin or anyone else made a sincere effort to build socialism or communism. It is much more difficult to argue whether "the modern world" made a particular effort. Using "the modern world" as a subject of a sentence is not something that is likely to be a verifiable fact. Even if one provides verifiable sources which state "The modern world" did such and such, from the point of view of objectivity, it would make sense to state that author X argues that the "modern world" did such and such.

However, that issue aside, the statement that an effort was made to build socialism or communism in Russia represents a single viewpoint among many.

I am adding a "NPOV" tag to this article, because its neutrality is disputed.

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

"Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with."

--BostonMA

Please don't-- it isn't even unclear what you are dispuitng. 172 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm disputing that the characterization of Russia as "the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale" is neutral in its point of view. --BostonMA

BostonMA, are you the anon editor who made this edit [12]? I think there is some merit in those changes, but with a page as busy and controversial as this, even small alterations take considerable discussion. Big changes that are not preceded by discussion tend, like it or not, to get reverted quickly. Why not tell us exactly which bits you dislike and what you would replace them with, giving us a firm foundation for discussion. Mattley ^(Chattley) 15:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, yes I am the one who made the changes above. I'd be happy to discuss with you the entire article, which I think has many flaws in it. However, I would like to make several requests first. One request is that a "disputed" or "npov" tag stay on the site until the issues are resolved. You describe the page as "busy and controversial". Why not flag the article as such? My second request is that the reverts stop. When an editor reverts text, they are in fact changing text, and as such need to be responsible for their changes. An editor should only make changes if they can support the text that they introduce -- doesn't matter whether the text was in there before, if an editor adds it, the editor should be responsible.

When certain forms of revisised communisim as practiced is included but not another I have to question the POV of the editors. (Gibby 19:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Revision

Gibby - there is no revision. It is a well known fact that the PRC has capitalist practices. This is already mentioned. See state capitalism - the Soviet Union and other Communist States practiced state capitalism - to paraphrase the article. Nearly all communist states had market economies of some sort, such as China. Furthermore, "free market" isn't even accurate. I'm also pleased you decide to make comments on my age as though it discredits me. That would be an entirely ad hominem attack which has nothing to do with the dispute. You assert that we're communists who are trying to impose favourable reivisonism of the article - but many of the editors who reverted you are not communist. Right-wingers and left-wingers alike would both agree that your section doesn't fit in with the article. Maoism is an ideology. Stalinism is an ideology. The state of the People's Republic of China having a free market is already mentiond in the article, and doesn't deserve a whole section. Gibby, there's a lot of info there - I think you're looking in the wrong place. It's People's Republic of China, not merely China. See the history section, and click on "main link". -- Natalinasmpf 19:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I second Natalinasmpf's comments. The new section critiquing China's market reforms (it seems as if the editor is writing from a Trotskyite perspective, or maybe a Maoist one) is utterly off-topic. The proper place for Gibby's observations is economy of the People's Republic of China and its subsidiary articles. 172 19:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

---

This page has non communist, as originally theorized, perspectives. Essentially evolutionary communism. Maoism, is not communism Stalinism is not communism. Neither are ideologies with any respect to the definition. They are means of apply basic communist principles to a particular culture for a particular goal...which may or may not have anything to do with communism.

Free trade and free market are pretty accurate, you are most likely applying meanings that are not consistent with what free market advocates...well advocate. The Hoover Institute declares Hong Kong to be the most free economy on the planet. If you have problems with that, take it up with the HOover Institute and the Wall Street Journal.

This article is not about communism, it is about the usage of communism and its evolution. That is made very clear by the inclusion of things not in line with original communist philosophy. VERY CLEAR. Your elimination of the free trade communist section is very puzzling. Most likely POV motivated. (Gibby 23:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

How does it not fit

Free Trade Communists?

What seems to be contradictory to communism as a theory, and even communism as it has been practiced, are the free trade zones currently operating in The People's Republic of China; the largest self described communist nation in the world. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Shao Ping, communist China runs some of the most free trade oriented regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the most free economy in the world [13].

The People's Republic of China's "Special Economic Zones" have few restrictions upon buisnesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [14]

---

You include Stalinism, Maoism, a bunch of others, which by the definition of communist purists or communist sicophants, are not communists (because those forms of "communism" killed more than 100 million people)...but you won't include the latest form of "communism" as "practiced" because it simply doest agree with anti property basics? or what? Seriously. You editors have no ground to stand on. No good reasons, no logical reasons...what you've given holds no water with what the page declares itself to be, or what you yourself has declared the page to be. YOU CANT EVEN BE CONSISTENT!!!!

(Gibby 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

---

FURTHERMORE, Nati? If the free trade section is already covered in another page under the economics of the PRC, and that is reason enough to exclude it, then the very existence of Lenninism, Maoism, etc, on pages DEDICATED to them, AND under pages discussing communism respective to those countries (I'm following your OWN LOGIC), then they (lenninism, maoism etc) should not be on this page.

My logic is undeniable. Yours is confused. You have failed to defend it. YOu wont even discuss it. STOP DELETING MY SECTION BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN POV!!!!

(Gibby 23:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Gibby, your logic is not so much undeniable as incomprehensible. I don't mean to be harsh but I cannot follow the jist of what you are trying to say, and you are still not addressing the fundamental issues raised above. Most of all, you seem to be misunderstanding the way consensus and discussion work on wikipedia. It is pretty clear that a number of other editors disagree with the additions you wish to make. No other editor agrees with you. The onus is on you to demonstrate what makes those additions useful and appropriate, without resorting to ad hominem accusations of POV pushing, and you should give other editors time to respond before going ahead with radical changes to an existing version. This article has been subject to huge revision over the years and embodies a huge amount of collective effort by innumerable editors. The discussion page here should be enough to demonstrate the amount of work and discussion that has gone into producing the existing version. This is not to say that substantial changes cannot be made, but an existing version carries considerable weight. In short, we discuss the alterations you want to make first. You do not add them and then simply revert anyone who supports the existing version whilst shouting at those editors about the need for discussion. That is not how things work. Mattley ^(Chattley) 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The reasons not to include that section have been as follows:

• POV (has been severely edited to remove an POV. I am the only one to make attempts at this)

• Does not fit because it is covered elsewhere (so is Lenninism, Maoism, and the Soviet Union...among others).

• Contradictory to Communism (again, So is Lenninism, Maoism, Stalinism...among others. They are "evolved" at least rhetorically from communist thought, and do not fit communism as the well as the originally theory would like to describe itself).

That WAS never a reason that we cited. You made up that reason and put words into our mouths. "Free trade communists" doesn't fit in not because it's contradictory to communism, but because it doesn't pertain to ideology per se, it's making a huge fuss about the irony of the situation, as opposed to talking about communism and mentioning the fact that China has a market economy, rather than focusing on the fact that China has a market economy and not discussing how China justifies this status. -- 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This cannot be expressed any simpler. You, and other editors, have failed to explain why other revisionist forms of communism can exist on other pages, and here, and exist on a communist page that claims to be about the philosophy. The logic you have used to date is highly contradictory. Highly!!!

Your section is not a "revisionist" form of communism. It's a redundant piece of info that belongs to the PRC specifically, since you're using it as a case study, when an example has already been mentioned. We don't need an entire section about it, because for one, it is highly redundant. We already HAVE links to the People's Republic of China. If they want to know more about the PRC, they can click on that link. We don't need it clogging up the article because this article is long enough already. -- Natalinasmpf 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I posted my piece, if you have suggestions on how to better it, by all means share them, or even make them. But deleting it is out of the question. There is no good reason why it cannot exist...as I have shown, only failed logic has graced these pages as to why it should not be here.

Am I clear now? (Gibby 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

No, it isn't clear at all. What is the point of the section you keep trying to assert? You start out with the statement What seems to be contradictory to communism as a theory before introducing the idea of Free Trade Zones in China. This asserts that China is representative of communism in theory (and practice, according to your later versions). This is a clear POV assertion. Find some notable and reputable critic who makes the point you want to make and you can attribute it to him or her; that is within the framework of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Mattley ^(Chattley) 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• 1. If other sections are also present in other articles so should FMC remain here!
• 2. If other forms of "evolutionary" communism exist on this article so should an evolution of communism remain here.
• 3. It is not an entire section, it is a small subsection.
• 4. I think you just dont want the information presented because you dont like capitalism and dont like the fact that its working very well in china
• 5. Free Markets are contradictory to communism. THE PRC does consider itself communist. But as Deng suggested they would pursue communism with chinese characteristics. Just like lennin revised communism to suit his own needs. I make it very clear that they call themselves communist not that they are. WORDS HAVE MEANINGS, so learn them please.

' You still have no point...and no good reason to delete the subsection. Period (Gibby 00:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Your assertiveness, use of extensive exclamation marks, bad grammar and bad etiquette shows how immature you are. You attack me for my age, which is rather ironic. It IS an entire section. This == text here == is called an entire section. Oooh, I want to remove it because I dislike capitalism and its working in China....how absolutely immature - I heavily dislike the Gongchandang for continuing to repress opposition and ALSO capitalism is revealing an excess in China - it's hardly working very well. That is beside the point. If I wanted to censor the fact that China's economy was working, I would do so in other pages. The fact is, your section doesn't belong here because the detail is too narrow - this article's scope is very broad. Your section is NOT an ideology - and is already covered in state capitalism. "Words have meanings, learn them please"? How absolutely immature - you assume we are ignorant? Gosh, you are worse than the aetherometrists. It's not the fact whether China is communist is not. Rather, it's the fact whether it belongs in this article or not. It needs to have the proper tone, scope, and addressment of issues - your scope is too narrow, if we included every single detail there would no need for separate articles! -- Natalinasmpf 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop Deleting comments from the Discussion Page

The title speaks for itself -- BostonMA

who is doing that?

Warning

Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours. (Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.)

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC) If the edit war do not subside, I will protect the article for a cool-off period. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Article is protected. Please cool-off and take a well-deserved break. When you are ready to resume editing, place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for moderating the edit wars

The Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page is official policy of wikipedia. The very first paragraph on disupte resolution reads in part:

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

That point dovetails with the Wikipedia philosophy of NPOV

"Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" "

It is worth emphasizing that a neutral point of view is one that incorporates (significant) minority views, not one that ignores such minority views.

It is quite obvious that in the recent period, editors have not been following these guidelines. Rather than improving edits, editors have been reverting. Rather than attempting to incorporate minority views, editors have been attempting to exclude those views.

I would like all active editors to take the current cooling off period to reconsider their commitment to these guidelines. I would further propose that as a precondition for the unlocking of the page, we make an explicit agreement amongst ourselves to abide by these guidelines. (BostonMA 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

There is no serious problem of the kind you describe, User:BostonMA. There are problems alright, but they have different sources altogether. There may have been occasions over the last day or two when legitimate and potentially useful edits got drowned out in the white noise of User:KDRGibby's POV crusade - this is what seems to have happened to your attempt at editing the article. Insofar as all editors should strive not to bite new editors and should give reasons for reverting changes, you have a good point. But the issue of edit-warring in much broader than this.

The edit war that led to this article being protected was caused by a single user who insisted on making major changes against consensus and without prior discussion. Review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby. I think it demonstrates pretty effectively that editors on this page went out of their way to enter into discussion, to point out applicable policies that showed the problems of the addition and to bring the issue to the attention of the wider community.

You attribute the edit war to KDRGibby, but have not acknowledged your own responsibility for that war. KDRGibby seeks to have a certain POV included in the article. He has not tried to exclude other POV's. How is a neutral POV to be established? Is not a neutral POV one that incorporates and represents all significant minority POV's?

KDRGibby's edits certainly suffer from the inclusion of "original research", and other faults as well. However, these are problems not only of KDRGibby's edits, but with the article as a whole. When editors summarily revert edits, on the grounds of "original research", (but often citing nothing more than aesthetic objections), but show little or no activity in removing original research from the existing article, or even refuse to allow original research to be removed from that article, well, that does indeed show the signs of a POV crusade -- a POV crusade by a group, which I'm sorry to say, seems to include yourself.

As for editing rather than reverting: you are mischaracterising wikipedia guidelines. We are not under any obligation to keep or rework an edit simply because it is an edit. It is more than possible for an edit to be so riddled with POV, original research and appalling expression that it is unreasonable to expect other editors to fix its problems rather than take it out of the article. It can and should be worked on for inclusion, if the underlying point is worthy inclusion, but we do not have to give crap the benefit of the doubt and keep it in the article while we de-crapify it. The place for collective de-crappification is this talk page and the time is before addition.

You say that I am mischarcterising wikipedia guidelines. I quoted them, how did I mischaracterize them? I did not say that editors were under obligation to keep or rework edits simply because it is an edit. No-one need edit or keep vandalism. Nor need anyone work at editting the article at all. However, I do believe that responsible editors have an obligation to work towards establishing a NPOV. We are not talking about vandalism, but of legitimate attempts at the expression of minority POV's.

You are also mischaracterising the edits that you made, (which, incidentally, I don't think were crap). You complain that others should have tried to edit your material rather than simply revert it, but what you did was replace fthree or four whole paragraphs with complete rewrites! Why didn't you try to edit the bits you thought were lacking? Instead you removed a big chunk of the article that embodied the collective work of numerous editors over a sustained period of time and is assumed, by implication, to enjoy a degree of consensus support. That isn't a constructive way of editing stable articles like this. Here's a guideline for you: major changes to major articles should only be made after editors have raised the issue on the talk page, given other editors adequate time to respond, and built a consensus for the changes they wish to make. Now go and work on your proposal and we can discuss it like grown-ups. Mattley ^(Chattley) 14:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You say that I mischaracterized the edits that I made. That is quite possible. Could you point out the characterizations that I made, and what is wrong with them?

You say that I replaced three or four whole paragraphs with complete rewrites. Actually, I replaced 2 paragraphs, containing a total of 10 lines, in an article that is orders of magnitude larger than my edits. I would have liked to make even smaller changes. Unfortunately, the paragraphs in question have significant "original research". They tell narrative, where one "fact" is then used to provide the "reason" for another "fact". Removing one piece of the pile, causes the whole structure to collapse. After, realizing that my edits would be removed in the course of a few minutes, I aimed to simply insert one substantiated fact into the narrative. (A fact which casts doubt on the whole narrative). However, that also was removed within minutes.

Whether or not the section in question is presumed to have consensus support, it contains demonstrable "original research". It lacks verifiable sources, and, in my humble opinion, is flat out incorrect. The editors of the Communism article who have so much energy in removing edits, seem to have very little inclination to remove defects in the article that have been pointed out to them.

What demonstrates "original research"? (68.97.49.51)

Are you asking in general or in the particular case at hand? The particular case at hand see the discussion on the section "Under the Comintern. For the more general case, there is a discussion heading "Proposal re: Original Research" that I hope would help to resolve that sort of issue. (BostonMA 01:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

---

By attaching my username below, I agree to abide by the guidelines described above.

(BostonMA 03:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Anon comments

What kind of stupid Website has topics such as "Smurf communism" and "state communism?" This entry is worse than useless--its wishy-washy language sets up an inevitable "Wiki-war." comments added by User:68.6.230.71.

Rename Communism or communism

I propose this header Communism or communism be renamed to Capitalization. I would have changed it myself it hadn't been for the page block. :( — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 04:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Why can this not be included in the article?

===Free Trade Communists?===

What seems to be contradictory to communism as a theory, and even communism as it has been practiced, are the free trade zones currently operating in The People's Republic of China; the largest self described communist nation in the world. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Shao Ping, communist China runs some of the most free trade oriented regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the most free economy in the world [2].

The People's Republic of China's "Special Economic Zones" have few restrictions upon buisnesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [3]

(Gibby 05:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Because the scope is utterly too narrow: I don't create an entire section in this article about how the economy of Vietnam seems really non-communist, or how the economy of the United States has some extensive welfare elements despite its supposedly capitalist economy; you mention it in one or two sentences, with proper context to the section it is in (future, perhaps) - not an entire section. And certainly, you don't have sections with a question mark. Please see Wikipedia:Section. I think you are treating the Communism article like a blog where informal comments can be stated at will juxtaposed to other material. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. It is my opinion that "oh look, China has a free market!" doesn't fit because it's really an essay question, on observation which is entirely valid - but everyone already knows about it, is already mentioned, and doesn't need an entire section. It's obvious that China has a free market. You don't need to cite it to us.

Wikipedia:State the obvious (BostonMA 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Look, I really didn't want to take this up to an RFC, but perhaps we can resolve this amicably as fellow editors. As a community, we want a fair degree of professionalism and formality in our articles. Editors including myself, 172, Mattley and others think that your addition isn't professional or formal enough. If we were to formalise it, it would be completely redundant because it's already mentioned. You want it to be mentioned that China has a free market. This is not a POV view. We don't really object to this, except for the line "what seems to be contradictory", which implies that it isn'tand hence is a POV view, but this is a very minor issue. Ignoring that, it's stated throughout the article that self-declared communist states continue to use market economies with government control - state capitalism. You want to write a fact - that China has a free market. I don't disagree with this fact. I don't agree with having an entire section devoted to it, not because I want to cover it up, nor does anyone want to cover this fact up, but because it is redundant, is already mentioned, and the scope of the article needs to be balanced. It is not a POV issue.

The thing we really have trouble with is that just because someone objects to your proposal, you immediately suspect that they are objecting because they want to cover up this information. I really hope you Wikipedia:Assume good faith about other editors and assume that their objections are for legitimate reasons until it becomes clear (and proven) that the editor does not have good faith. There are many reasons why we might object to including a section. One of the key points is presentation and style, as well as omitting redundancy. You can see that we have sections on Maoism and Leninism but these aren't redundant because they mention the context of the ideologies to communism, then encourage the reader to read more in another page if they want to. The detail then, is all included there. This is to allow readers who want general information not to be obstructed by detail they are not looking for. It also makes the article look better. Your section is both too detailed, and is already mentioned, so there's no need to include it. There is nothing wrong with your entry: but you can see your mission already has been fulfilled. Thanks. -- Natalinasmpf 07:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith states in part:

"The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone. Every revert (rather than change) of a biased edit is a NPOV defeat, no matter how outrageous the edit was. Consider figuring out why the other person felt the article was biased. Then, if possible, try to integrate their point, but in terms you consider neutral. If each side practices this they will eventually meet at NPOV — or a rough semblance of it."

and

"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring." (BostonMA 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

There are several problems with including this in the article. First off, the article as it currently stands is not a discussion of the economic, political and social affairs of countries run by communist parties: that discussion is at Communist states and at the home articles of the various countries that fall into that category. You have argued that we are being inconsistent in having sections on Stalinism, Maoism and so forth but not wanting to include your section on China, but Stalinism and Maoism are branches of communist theory/politics so they are within the rubric of the article. This article isn't supposed to contain every piece of information related to the subject of communism. It is supposed to give an overview and direct readers to articles where particular themes and areas are considered in more depth. If we add in this stuff about Free Trade Zones in China, someone else will want to add something about how China was never really communist in the first place. Then someone else will insert a critique of the USSR and before we know it we'll have Trotsky and deformed workers states and bureaucratic collectivism, the Khmer Rouge, the Spanish Civil War, various different estimates of impact of Stalin's purges and a bunch of digressions that prevent us giving the cogent overview that this article is supposed to be.

Your argument seems to be from the POV that Maoism is one branch of communist theory/politics, but that the current Chinese CP is not a branch of communist theory/politics. But alternate POV's hold that both are equally branches (or equally not) of communist theory/politics. That is where a POV is being excluded. All the rest of your arguments seem to amount to the idea that that POV should be excluded on the basis of style, space, redundancy, etc., etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum. (BostonMA 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

The other problem is to do with the inherent POV. The addition seems to imply that China's current experiences have an impact on theoretical communism at a world level. They don't. No communist outside China regards China as anything except a state capitalist regime.

Um, this (i.e. "no communist ...") is factually incorrect, unless one takes a quite restricted POV regarding who is/isn't a communist. But even if it were true, you seem to admit that "communists" inside China might take a different POV. Do they not count? (BostonMA 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

I think it is also incorrect to state that China's current experiences have no impact on theoretical communism on a world level, (unless one takes a restrive POV of who is/isn't communist). Most self-identified communist periodicals that I have read, and that is many, have in fact discussed the Chinese capitalist market, and have used that as evidence for one theoretical POV or another.

I've pointed out several times that the idea of China's actions contradicting communist theory only works if China can be regarded as practising communism. Some say it can, others say it can't. Your section says it can, which makes it POV. Why not just put this stuff in the article on China? That's where it belongs. It isn't about communism except tangentially in that it concerns a country run by a self-described Communit Party. You don't say how the business of Free Trade Zones relates to communism. You just say China is communist, here's a bunch of stuff about Free Trade in China. Does that make sense? Mattley ^(Chattley) 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem not to be willing to acknowledge the POVs which hold that Maoism and the current Chinese CP are either equally part of the communist movement, or equally not. (BostonMA 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

---

Scope to narrow? It leaves open room for other free trade communists or communist governments that are opening up to free trade. The section is expandable. This is to help show the evolution of communism, as is your inclusion of the Soviet Union, Lenninism, Maoism, etc.

There is no original research. Read the rule again. I hae verifiable and respected sources that come to the same conclusion.

The state capitalism SENTENCE is insufficient to describe what is going on NOW, more detail is necessary to help readers see the stark difference between communism (AS PRACTICED) then and communism now... China is much more than Russia ever did if you include china as a state capitalist...which it is NOT included in that section.

Free trade oriented communist countries are NOT suffeciently covered ANYWHERE. Yet you want to delete it because it gets half a nod somewhere else? You say we should keep Lenninism and Maoism because they are apart of how communism has developed, well China's example of how free trade regions is an example, RIGHT NOW, of how communism is developing (and for that matter the rest of the world). You say they should be included because they can link to pages with more information, I say the same thing about my section. What a wonderful reason for including it! So what is the big deal about having a small but expandable section linked with other pages? Is this not what wiki is all about? To expand our knowledge by connecting information with relevent information.

I am not pushing a view that China is how communism is. I am saying, and did say quiet clearly, that China calls itself a communist country. Just like the Soviet Union did, even though it violated basic assumptions Marx made about what a communist government would look like in theory. In fact, no government has ever been truely communist they've all been revisions of communism for personal or more practical purposes. SO, China calls itself communist, it runs free markets (more so than most other parts of the world), free markets and capitalism are contradictory to what communism as a theory was supposed to be, and free markets was largely unthinkable to communists as practiced in the Mao, Lennin, and Stalin eras. So again you have no point. Stating fact is not a POV. I worded and re-worded that section constantly to make editors like you happy. But your not, and it is not because you want to work to make the section better. IT seems like any excuse to get rid of it is the consensus (as evident by the constant additions of complaints...see original work).

Again, Lenninism, Maoism, are theories on how communism should be implemented not the original theory of communism. As such it is not true communism, but an "evolution" of communism, much in the same way the special economic zones are an evolution out of MAOISM and communism...

These reasons for exclusion are less than perfect. It should be included.

(Gibby 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Free Trade Communists?

Contrary to communism as a theory, and even communism as it has been practiced, The People's Republic of China; the largest self described communist nation in the world, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist buisness free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, communist China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy [15].

The People's Republic of China's "Special Economic Zones" have few restrictions upon buisnesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. These Special Economic Zones are different than the State Capitalism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, because the SEZs allow for capitalists to build and expand their industries and private property, free from the control of the central government. SEZ's operate under market economy rather than the state capitalist top down command economy approach.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [16]

or

Free Trade Communists?

Contrary to original communist theory, and even communism as it has been practiced under regimes such as Lennin, Stalin, and Mao, The People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, The People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy [17].

The People's Republic of China's "Special Economic Zones" have few restrictions upon buisnesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties, and a free price system. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. These Special Economic Zones are different than the State Capitalism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, because the SEZs allow for capitalists to build and expand their industries and private property, free from the control of the central government. SEZ's operate under market economy rather than the state capitalist top down command economy approach.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [18]

KDRGibby, you still haven't anwered the points I raised above. But anyway, look at it this way. Here is what happens when you do some google searches on "free trade communist" [19] and "free trade communism". [20]. You get 27 results for the first and 92 for the second. Most of those are not referring to the phrase but contrasting one part with another. "Free Trade Communism" isn't a notable new development in communist theory/practice. If it contradicts communism as a theory and communism as it has been practised, isn't that a good indication that we shouldn't be discussing it at length in an article about communism? Why not add the material on Special Economic Zones to the article on China instead? Mattley ^(Chattley) 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

your concerns are odd, and not workable, for one point...there is no original research in there other than I originally typed all this myself and originally researched to get appropriate sources. The title, Free Market Communist? Can be changed. I have no problem with that. The ? was in there to reflect the irony of the situation. Which it is ironic. The communist party of China allows special economic zones which are, even by capitalist standards of the HOover Institute and the Wall Street Journal, to be the most economically free regions in the world. The ? reflects this irony. However, it is not a point I fill fight, find a nice title and slap it in there. (Gibby 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Okay, once more. "Free Trade Communism" isn't a notable new development in communist theory/practice. There are not people out there talking about what a significant development this is in the history of communism. If there were, 'free trade communism' would come back with lots of google hits. There are people discussing how significant it is in the development of the PRC, which it is. So why not add the material to the article on China? If it contradicts communism as a theory and communism as it has been practised, isn't that a good indication that we shouldn't be discussing it at length in an article about communism? Mattley ^(Chattley) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not notable? What because you said so? Or because you ignored the fact that these special economic zones have been runing free market oriented economies for 20 years?

Or perhaps because you put an arbitrary number on what is an acceptable good hit. Your standard for eliminating sections is poorly flawed logic. Otherwise come up with a new title for "The growth of modern Communism" because...THESE ARE ONLY TITLES AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE RESEARCH OF THE BODY AS TITLES ARE MERELY EXPLANITORY OF WHAT IS TO BE READ BELOW.

Stop coming up with more crap to keep something you dont like out.

This is BULL shit! Emphasis added on the bull.

(Gibby 23:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

hey look

"Collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism today"

has only 164 hits, thats less than Free Market Communism!

GET RID OF IT!!!!!

http://www.google.com/search?hs=4wx&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=%22Collapse+of+the+Soviet+Union+and+Communism+today%22&btnG=Search

Proposal re: Original Research

In my opinion, there are many sorts of statements that are immediately suspect as original research, and more or less require verifiable sources if they are to stand. Such suspect statements include statements of the implications of certain theories. For example, if one states, "Person X's theory implies Y", that is likely to be original research, that it is likely that the editor actually made the implication. It would not be original research if a verifiable source drew the implication, although questions of neutrality may come into play at that point. Another suspect class of statements are those that purport to provide the motives or reasons behind the actions of various parties. Again, if there are verifiable sources, then it would not be original research, but these sorts of statements are immediately suspect. A third class of statements that I would find suspect includes those that have "The world" or "History" as the subject of an action clause.

Suspect statements are not necessarily original research. However, the following phrases in Communism are examples of things that raise red flags for me.

"Marx's theory had presumed that..." (Who drew the implication from Marx's theory? A verifiable source, or the author of the edit?)

"according to Marxian theory" (According to Marxian theory, or according to the interpetation of Marxian theory of the editor?)

"For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks..." (Who drew this inference? The editor? or a verifiable source?)

I would favor the establishment of an informal, but at least explicitly stated agreement regarding such suspect statements.

The agreement I would propose is this:

1. An editor puts on the discussion page a section entitled

"Original Research -- some description".

2. Other editors supply, within 48 hours, verifiable sources if they exist, or a request for extension.

3. If no offer of verifiable sources or request for extension is made within 48 hours, an editor may edit or remove the suspect statement.

4. Editors agree not to revert a suspect statement removed or editted in accordance with this procedure, unless verifiable sources are provided.

(BostonMA 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Substance of NPOV complaint

(please add comments at the end and do not modify original formatting)

According to many Maoists or adherents of movements that emerged from Maoism, Maoism is a branch of communist theory/politics, but the political faction which holds power in the Peoples Republic of China today is not a branch of communist theory/politics. I do not know whether any editors of belong to those political tendencies or not. Nor is it any of my business. However, the arguments against including a discussion of capitalist enterprises in the Peoples Republic of China are consistent with the POV of the Maoists and of movements that emerged from Maoism.

I will describe another POV as "A branch of Trotskyism" although it may be found amongst a wide variey of political POVs. According to the adherents of this view, Maoism is a deviant offshoot of communist theory/politics, as is the current faction which holds power in China today. A deviant offshoot of communist theory/politics might be considered "a branch" of the communist movement in some contexts, and might be considered "not a branch" of the communist movement in other contexts. But in any context, either both Maoism and the current ruling faction are considered branches of communism, or both are considered not be be branches of communism. I do not know whether any of the editors of Communism are aware that they have, in essence argued against the inclusion of this POV, or whether they are unaware. That is also not my business. The point is that the arguments that have been raised are consistent with a policy of excluding representation of this POV.

These two POV's are not minor views within the field of far-left politics. Nor is the contention between them trivial. It is my opinion, that the Communism article should incorporate and represent both POVs. That is the road to neutral POV.

These two POV's are not minor views within the field of far-left politics. Nor is the contention between them trivial. It is my opinion, that the Communism article should incorporate and represent both POVs. That is the road to neutral POV.

In my opinion, NPOV is more important than considerations of redundancy with other articles, length of the article, and other stylistic matters.

That in short, is the substance of the NPOV issue as I see it. (BostonMA 02:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Those are very interesting points, BostonMA. They are not at all the points that the disputed section tries to make, but that's by the by. Perhaps you could rephrase them in a more formal way or otherwise indicate how you think the discussion of China's relation to Maoism, Trotskyism and other branches of the communist movement could be incorporated into the article. I assume you wouldn't need to include detailed off-topic discussion of the substance of China's market reforms, their impact on economic growth, their assessment by the Hoover Institute and so forth, that would be more appropriately included at the People's Republic of China would you? Mattley ^(Chattley) 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand what is under dispute. It seems as if BostonMA is pointing out that while the CPC officially claims to be a Maoist party, that virtually no Maoist party outside China recognizes it as such. If that's the case, I don't know why he can't just come out as say so, rather than getting into an arcane discussion of factional rifts on the far-left in countries where Communist parties are not the ruling parties. My suggestion is that he take his observation to the Communist Party of China and/or Maoism article, and leave this article to be unprotected. 172 17:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

solidarity.

There seems to be a lack of solidarity among the editors of this article... sorry, i had to!

Solidarity was a polish political party that began in, i believe 1980, by unionized workers who demanded free government, free prices, and free markets. Unfortunatly their reforms would not fully succeed as the forces of conservatism rushed into to prevent further reform...which in and of itself created problems for the economy...those problems would be blamed on market reform...even though market reform didnt cause the problem. But all this is another story!!! :P

(Gibby)

What do you mean market reform didn't cause the problem? (Not that I disagree, but you must cite your reasons). -- Natalinasmpf 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

When you set out to create market reform like a functioning price system by eliminating price controls for example, it will only function so well until the externalties caused by government interference such as subsidies or ownership of industries are realized by the market. In which case prices will rise at the shortage of goods, or, the factors of other goods will not be produced as the government interference is directing them to lower valued uses. Eventually your reforms come to a crashing hault if you do not rapidly and completly reform your country to the free market.

Thus, it was not the market reforms that caused the problem, they werent really given a fair chance to function, as the government interference that remained prevented it from functioning correctly. (Gibby 20:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

---

A better example of government induced failures where the market is blamed is the Asian Finacial Crisis, which was really the result of fixed exchange rates and governments seeking a balance of payments or a favorable trade surplus...or better yet, the American Great Depression...which ironically is taught in America as the result of laissez fair government and free markets.

In actuallity trade tariffs rose steadily since the early 1900s in america, the government began creating many regulatory agencies. The government created a fixed exchange rate on gold (which would later cause the deflationary preasure that caused teh great depression) the regulatory agencies would prevent banks from functioning to avert a bank run, and then the government raised taxes to create more regulatory programs to stop the recession then printed more money than was needed by the market which caused inflation...the results of which were a massive depression rather than a simple government induced recession.

But American history books leave all that out.

What the government doesnt want you to know as it that economic control allows them to control your political and civil freedoms, so lying about how they caused problems makes Americans believe they can solve problems they actually caused. Thus they sustain their own overbloated existance through lies.

(Gibby 20:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

You may be right, but no one is going to take the time to read your posts. No one is interested in your POV on East Asian political economy. Gibby, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. [21] 172 20:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right so stop POVing the rules to your own favor by deleting relevant information to the article on communism. And...Nati asked, I answered. Learn to deal with intellectual competition on its own grounds and grow up. (Gibby 20:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Adding section on free market

I could agree with the addition of a section as follows below (based on Gibby's text):

Communists in power and the free market Contrary to original communist theory, and even communism as it has been practiced under regimes such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, the People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, the People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy [22].

These Special Economic Zones have few restrictions upon businesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties, and a free price system. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. These Special Economic Zones are different than the State Capitalism, as practiced in the Soviet Union, because the SEZs allow for capitalists to build and expand their industries and private property, free from the control of the central government. SEZ's operate under market economy rather than the state capitalist top down command economy approach.

According to China.org "After opening Shenzhen and other three coastal cities in South China as special economic regions and then dozens of economic and technological development zones in the 1980s, the country introduced free trade zones in the early 1990s in 15 coast cities, including Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Tianjin." [23]

It might be interesting to broaden this section with examples in North Korea and Vietnam. Electionworld 09:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it is different from state capitalism. China remains state capitalist, due to political suppression of dissidents. That remains a critical distinction in any "free market" economy whatsoever. Furthermore, yes, China is a major example of a communist country espousing free market ideals, but the current article is already cluttered enough. I could see a paragraph of this being sufficient, fitting under the "Communism today" section, to elaborate on already existing material. The concept of China having a free market is not restricted to China, many so called communist countries already have market economies. Therefore, it should be oriented less on the PRC on more about free markets in communist countries in general, the full explanation being at state capitalism, citing the PRC as an example. -- Natalinasmpf 09:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I aggree, China is not the only self described communist country that is implementing market reforms, attracting foriegn investment, lower import restrictions, and encouraging foriegn development. And because multiple modern communist countries are implementing these reforms, it should be included...afterall we've already shown the evolution to lenninism, stalinism, maosim...why not this "reformism"

And yes, Nati, china's SEZs are far different than State Capitlism. China runs 2 separate economies. 1 command economy 1 market economy (in the SEZs)...market economies are NOT state capitalism as none of the supply, demand, or price information is directed by the central government. (Gibby

Because that is not an ideology, and is covered in both state capitalism and communist state. It remains state capitalism because the government still economically represses its society directly (as opposed to insidiously with plutocracy). Ultimately, it still remains state capitalism because the internal flow within the country has not been lifted, and thus remains state capitalist. -- Natalinasmpf 19:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well opponents of free markets label them an ideology and now its mixed with communists...sounds like it clears to me.

Is it me or are the excuses for excluding this section constantly changing? (Gibby 20:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

No, they are not. The reasons for excluding the section are that it is off-topic, irrelevant, POV original research. Please give it a rest. Information on the economy of China can be found in economy of the People's Republic of China. Information on the CPC can be found in Communist Party of China. Please give it up here. 172 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)