My Sig Contribution to Classical Liberalism

Classical liberalism (also called classic liberalism or simply liberalism) is the original form of, and is today a tendency within, liberalism. It is a political school of thought that first emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries, upholding individualism and free market economics. Classical liberalism focuses on concepts of individual autonomy and private property, and argues that the sole legitimate function of government is to defend these. Classical liberals promote the use of precisely delineated constitutions that are difficult or impossible to modify, intended to prevent governments from assuming an interventionist role.

The term "classical liberalism" itself was coined in the 20th century, and applied retroactively to pre-1850 liberalism, to avoid confusion with an accepted modern definition of liberalism. Modern libertarians see themselves as having revived the original doctrine of liberalism, and calling themselves "libertarians", "classical liberals" or "market liberals."

Introduction

The classic liberal philosophy places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. It forms the philosophy underpinning of the laissez-faire philosophy. The precepts of classic liberalism were probably best described by John Locke and Adam Smith, and illuminated much of the thought at the time of the American revolution. As a result, the United States Constitution and the United States Declaration of Independence are both documents that embody many principles of classic liberalism.

Modern liberalism tends to deviate from this definition of the term "liberal" in that it espouses the use of the power of government to achieve a variety of desirable goals, ranging from social justice to economic equality. The term classical liberalism is often used interchangeably with the term libertarianism. Raimondo Cubeddu of the Department of Political Science of the University of Pisa says "It is often difficult to distinguish between "Libertarianism" and "Classical Liberalism." Those two labels are used almost interchangeably by those who we may call libertarians of a "minarchist" persuasion: scholars who, following Locke and Nozick, believe a State is needed in order to achieve effective protection of property rights." [1] The Cato Institute briefly discusses these changes and their views on the term classical liberalism, stating from their website:

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy. Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals."

Thus the Cato Institute[2] sees Classical Liberals, liberals, and libertarians being from the same ideological family. Classical liberals, like those within the Cato Institute, often prefer to call themselves liberals because they see themselves as the only rightful inheritors of Liberalism.

Origins

Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy. With roots in ancient Greek and medieval thought, it received an early expression in the 16th century by the School of Salamanca and its classic formulation in the Enlightenment tradition. The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Scottish philosopher Adam Smith is one of the classic works that rejects the philosophy of mercantilism, which advocated state interventionism in the economy and protectionism. The classical liberals saw mercantalism as enriching privileged elites at the expense of well being of the populace. Another early expression is the tradition of a Nordic school of liberalism set in motion by a Finnish parliamentarian Anders Chydenius. Classical liberalism tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual liberty and private property. The phrase is often used as a means of delineating the older philosophy called liberalism from modern liberalism, in order to avoid semantic confusion.

Classic Liberalism is close to 18th century Liberalism. The Wealth of Nations (1776) by Adam Smith is considered one of the classic foundations of liberalism. While Adam Smith provides an explanation of liberalism and economics, the legal and philosophical understanding originates with scholars like John Locke and evolves through Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Immanuel Kant, in the Perpetual Peace, creates an international liberal framework to foster a sustainable world peace.

The term "liberal" derived from this time period (generally the 18th and 19th century) with its origination stemming from the belief in individual freedom, economic freedom (including free markets), and limited representative government. This original understanding of the word "liberal" carries the same meaning in a few countries, but in most countries the meaning and ideology behind liberalism differ to certain degrees (e.g. social security, tariffs, intervention and regulation into the economy, wage and price controls) from its meaning in the eighteenth century. In many countries liberalism holds a position between classical liberalism and American liberalism. Only a few major parties adhere to classical liberalism, most of the liberal parties accept limited government intervention in economics.

Immanuel Kant

Classic Liberals include all original liberals such as John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Stuart Mill with his work On Liberty, and even more modern liberals such as Von Mises, Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Classical liberal institutions include the Frasier Institute (Canada), The Hoover Institution (Stanford University), and The Cato Institute to name a few.

In Hayek's book The Constitution of Liberty, in the chapter, "Why I am not a Conservative" Hayek tells us that he was not a conservative because he was in fact a liberal; and had refused to give up that label. In the United States the term liberal had changed meaning, and according to Hayek this was because Franklin D Roosevelt had been labeled a socialist and a leftist because of his New Deal Policies. Fearing the consequences of that label, FDR called himself a Liberal instead. Since that day, Liberal in the United States has had a different meaning from the orginal, 18th and 19th century meaning of the word. People who stayed close to this orginal meaning label themselves often "Classic Liberal", "Classical Liberal" or "Libertarian" to avoid confusion (especially in America ).

Classical liberal philosophy

Classical liberals subscribe to a very basic and universal understanding of the world and the rights of all humans. Classical Liberals believe in private property, free markets, economic competition, freedom from coercion, limited government (all economic freedom), the rule of law, and individual rights (natural rights is also used). These are inherent to all people, of all faiths, cultures, societies, ethnicities, and histories and that all peoples are capable of achieving liberal government and liberal societies not just western cultures. (Classical) liberals prefer a laissez-faire style of government with a microeconomic focus and understanding of economic operations.

Classical liberals reject wealth transfers (though admire the goal of helping the needy), tariffs, or other trade barriers such as quotas, regulated markets (also known as a Mixed economy ), capital controls, wage and price controls. As a general rule these macroeconomic policies are considered by them as reducing the general welfare of society. Social security and tariffs, for example, are viewed by Milton Friedman as a perverse wealth transfers, meaning a wealth transfer from poor to rich. Hayek and Friedman also believed that economic freedom would help build and protect political and civil freedoms, while a loss in economic freedom ment a loss in civil and political freedoms.

Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom are examples of this philosophy updated for modern man and woman to understand (classical) liberalism.

Classical liberalism during the Great Depression and the rise of dictatorships

Some liberals, what are now known as classical liberals, including Friedrich August von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Von Mises, argued that the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market but also that such intervention can and will lead to international conflict (World War I and World War II) but the rise of totalitarian regimes and the loss of political and civil freedoms. They, along with a few more contemporary economists and historians have argued this thesis contrary to populist, socialist, and Keynsian opinions that the Great Depression was caused by too little government and free markets.[3]

Hayek, in his book The Road to Serfdom, believed that the rise of totalitarian regimes, whether they be communist, fascist, or Nazi, were the result of the restriction of economic freedom. Economic freedom was, thus, restricted by government intervention and regulation of the economy. Hayek states:

"…economic planning, conducted independently on a national scale, are bound in the aggregate effect to be harmful even from a purely economic point of view and, in addition to produce serious international friction. That there is little hope of international order or lasting peace so long as every country is free to employ whatever measures it desires in its own immediate interest, however damaging they may be to others…" Hayek, F.A., The Road to Serfdom, The University of Chicago Press, 1944. p. 240.

Here Hayek is demonstrating the rationale behind why economic policies like those subscribed to by Keynesian economists can not and could not be compatible to freedom and peace much in the same way Nazis, Fascists, and Communists failed to retain or create free and peaceful states

The more economic freedom that was lost, he said, the more civil and political freedom would be lost as well. Hayek's work The Road to Serfdom remains influential, argued against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments Keynesians were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch that sought the elimination of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus the differences between Nazis and communists are only rhetorical. The same outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt.

Nobel Prize winning economists such as Hayek and Milton Friedman have argued for years that economic freedom leads to greater political and civil rights and those governments who control the economy tend to limit economic rights and eventually will limit political, civil rights of their people. Friedman states,

"economic freedom is simply a requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction it reduces the area over which political power is exercised." Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Harcort Brace Janovich, 1980, p. 2-3

The Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini often defined fascism as a contrast to classical liberalism and its individualist foundation. For example: "The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual." And, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government."

File:FvonHayek.jpg

Friedrich A. Hayek

Classical liberalism, economic freedom, and their relationship with civil and political freedoms

Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. (Classical) liberal studies by the Canadian conservative Fraser Institute, the American conservative Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal argue that there is in fact a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms as Friedrich von Hayek had once said. They agree with Hayek's statement that those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms. On the other hand, economic freedom does not necesarily imply civil and political freedom.

FA Hayek and Milton Friedman have both observed that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. A link between a lack of economic freedom and human rights violation has been observed over the last century; easily seen by the atrocities committed by the least economically free countries in the world which include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia...

Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt. The facts of history in the post-war era affirmed in his vision the accuracy of his thesis. Clement Atlee's Labour Party, after winning a land slide election in post World War II England, encouraged private business owners to hand over their property, nationalized many industries, instituted wage and price controls, and even attempted to place restrictions on their citizens ability to seek employment at will, by requiring citizens to seek permission from the central government. Another example, in the 1960s the Labour Government of Harold Wilson placed a limit of £30 on money people could take abroad to avoid the consequences of an inflatonary policy pursued to create full-employment. Nevertheless, British democratic institutions survived and in 1979 a radical Conservative government led by Margaret Thatcher was elected, which, sometimes painfully, re-liberalised the economy.

Recent empirical studies by the Frasier Institute, Heritage Foundation, and the Wall Street Journal argued that there is in fact a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms as Friedrich von Hayek had once observed. As he stated, those countries which restrict economic freedom ultimately restrict civil and political freedoms.

Classical liberalism and rhetorical liberalism as practiced in the United States

In the United States, the Republican Party has been accused by some of merely paying lip service to classical liberal philosophy since the New Deal era. Republican president Richard Nixon, for example, instituted price controls on goods during an economic crisis in the 1970s (an act inconsistent with a strict classical liberal view). While the "New Deal" Democratic Carter administration oversaw the deregulation of the airline industry while also restricting the money supply (a harsh monetarist policy) to combat stagflation which plagued the United States. Many small liberal gains were achieved under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s as liberalism gained steam world wide, but the country continued to mount a national debt because of an imbalanced budget. The Democrats, under Bill Clinton, took things a little further, balancing the U.S. budget, creating NAFTA, and influencing the birth of the GATT94 WTO, all of which helped usher in a prosperous decade for the United States. The current President Bush has been accused of only verbally supporting free and open markets, while continuing to mount public debt and even raising trade barriers to protect the American steel industry. Despite some strides toward liberalism, the changes made have been small, to the point where some argue that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans maintain political platforms that reflect classical liberalism even though segments of both parties argue for less free trade and more managed trade. The Libertarian Party is an example of a party in the United States that wholeheartedly supports classical liberalism.

Within the United States, classical liberalism is rhetorically confused with conservatism. The Cato Institute, a think tank known for its advocation of classical liberalism in government, states from its website: [4]

"Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives."

Many classical liberals argue that modern liberalism, as it is practiced, is mostly rhetorical lip service to liberalism's highest ideals of freedom, rather than a function of its basic assumptions: the free market. See liberalism for further understanding.

External links

References

Cato Institute About the Cato Institute

[[Category:liberalism]] [[Category:Political theories]] [[es:Liberalismo clásico]] [[zh:古典自由主义]]

THE COMMUNIST PAGE AS IT SHOULD READ!

Editors of the communism page believe the bolded section should be removed for the following reasons

POV
Already covered in another page
Does not fit with communism

I responded by

editing to remove any percieved POV (They did not, they somehow believe deleting constitutes editing)
reminding them that Maosim, Lenninsm, the Soviet Union are not only covered in other pages, but have THEIR OWN PAGES
reminded them that Maoism, Lenninsm, the soviet union, and more, dont actually fit with the origins of communism either.

Furthermore, I added to the disclosure to reflect what the page really means, an evolution of the usage of communism rather than the original ideology (as they claim it to be but dont actually present it!!!!) I also put up tags, which have been removed with no discusion.

:This article is about communism as a form of society and as a political movement, as it has evolved in its usage. For issues regarding Communist organizations, see the Communist party article. For issues regarding Communist Party-run states, see Communist state.

Communism refers to a theoretical system of social organization and a political movement based on common ownership of the means of production. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society. A major force in world politics since the early 20th century, modern communism is generally associated with The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, according to which the capitalist profit-based system of private ownership is replaced by a communist society in which the means of production are communally owned, such as through a gift economy. Often this process is said initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie (see Marxism), passes through a transitional period marked by the preparatory stage of socialism (see Leninism). Pure communism has never been implemented, it remains theoretical: communism is, in Marxist theory, the end-state, or the result of state-socialism. The word is now mainly understood to refer to the political, economic, and social theory of Marxist thinkers, or life under conditions of Communist party rule.
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. The exception was the Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party. One branch of this party, commonly known as the Bolsheviks and headed by Vladimir Lenin, succeeded in taking control of the country after the toppling of the Provisional Government in the Russian Revolution of 1917. In 1918, this party changed its name to the Communist Party; thus establishing the contemporary distinction between communism and socialism.
After the success of the October Revolution in Russia, many socialist parties in other countries became communist parties, owing allegiance of varying degrees to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (see Communist International). After World War II, regimes calling themselves communist took power in Eastern Europe. In 1949 the Communists in China, led by Mao Zedong, came to power and established the People's Republic of China. Among the other countries in the Third World that adopted a Communist form of government at some point were Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, and Mozambique. By the early 1980s, almost one-third of the world's population lived under Communist states.
Communism never became a popular ideology in the United States, either before or after the establishment of the Communist Party USA in 1919. Since the early 1970s, the term "Eurocommunism" was used to refer to the policies of Communist Parties in Western Europe, which sought to break with the tradition of uncritical and unconditional support of the Soviet Union. Such parties were politically active and electorally significant in France and Italy. With the collapse of the Communist governments in Eastern Europe from the late 1980s and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, but around a quarter of the world's population still lives under Communist Party rule.

Marxism

Like other socialists, Marx and Engels sought an end to capitalism and the exploitation of workers. But whereas earlier socialists often favored longer-term social reform, Marx and Engels believed that popular revolution was all but inevitable, and the only path to socialism.
According to the Marxist argument for communism, the main characteristic of human life in class society is alienation; and communism is desirable because it entails the full realization of human freedom. Marx here follows G.W.F. Hegel in conceiving freedom not merely as an absence of constraints but as action having moral content. Not only does communism allow people to do what they want but it puts humans in such conditions and such relations with one another that they would not wish to have need for exploitation. Whereas for Hegel, the unfolding of this ethnical life in history is mainly driven by the realm of ideas, for Marx, communism emerged from material, especially the development of the means of production.
Marxism holds that a process of class conflict and revolutionary struggle will result in victory for the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society in which private ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence belong to the community. Marx himself wrote little about life under communism, giving only the most general indication as to what constituted a communist society. It is clear that it entails abundance in which there is little limit to the projects that humans may undertake. In the popular slogan that was adopted by the communist movement, communism was a world in which 'each gave according to his abilities, and received according to his needs.' The German Ideology (1845) was one of Marx's few writings to elaborate on the communist future:
In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic. [5]
Marx's lasting vision was to add this vision to a positive scientific theory of how society was moving in a law-governed way toward communism, and, with some tension, a political theory that explained why revolutionary activity was required to bring it about.
Some of Marx's contemporaries, such as Mikhail Bakunin, espoused similar ideas, but differed in their views of how to reach to a harmonic society with no classes. To this day there has been a split in the workers movement between Marxists (communists) and anarchists. The anarchists are against, and wish to abolish, every state organisation. Among them, anarchist-communists such as Peter Kropotkin believed in an immediate transition to one society with no classes, while anarcho-syndicalists believe that labor unions, as opposed to Communist parties, are the organizations that can help usher this society.

The growth of modern Communism

Soviet Marxism

In Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale, following the 1917 October Revolution, led by Lenin's Bolsheviks, raised significant theoretical and practical debates on communism among Marxists themselves. 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. Russia, however, was the poorest country in Europe, with an enormous, illiterate peasantry and little industry. Under these circumstances, it was necessary for the communists, according to Marxian theory, to create a working class itself. Nevertheless, some socialists believed that a Russian revolution could be the precursor of workers' revolutions in the west.
For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks had opposed Lenin's communist Bolsheviks in their demand for socialist revolution before capitalism had been established. In seizing power, the Bolsheviks found themselves without a program beyond their pragmatic and politically successful slogans "peace, bread, and land," which had tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War and the peasants' demand for land reform.
The usage of the terms "communism" and "socialism" shifted after 1917, when the Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies. The revolutionary Bolsheviks broke completely with the non-revolutionary social democratic movement, withdrew from the Second International, and formed the Third International, or Comintern, in 1919. Henceforth, the term "Communism" was applied to the objective of the parties founded under the umbrella of the Comintern. Their program called for the uniting of workers of the world for revolution, which would be followed by the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat as well as the development of a socialist economy. Ultimately, their program held, there would develop a harmonious classless society, with the withering away of the state. In the early 1920s, the Soviet Communists formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.
Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Communist parties were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline.
In 1918-1920, in the middle of the Russian Civil War, the new regime nationalized all productive property. When mutiny and peasant unrest resulted, Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP). However, Joseph Stalin's personal fight for leadership spelled the end of the NEP, and he used his control over personnel to abandon the program.
The Soviet Union and other countries ruled by Communist Parties are often described as 'Communist states' with 'state socialist' economic bases. This usage indicates that they proclaim that they have realized part of the socialist program by abolishing private control of the means of production and establishing state control over the economy; however, they do not declare themselves truly communist, as they have not established communal ownership.

Stalinism

The Stalinist version of socialism, with some important modifications, shaped the Soviet Union and influenced Communist Parties worldwide. It was heralded as a possibility of building communism via a massive program of industrialization and collectivization. The rapid development of industry, and above all the victory of the Soviet Union in the Second World War, maintained that vision throughout the world, even around a decade following Stalin's death, when the party adopted a program in which it promised the establishment of communism within thirty years.
However, under Stalin's leadership, evidence emerged that dented faith in the possibility of achieving communism within the framework of the Soviet model. 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.
Despite the activity of the Comintern, the Soviet Communist Party adopted the Stalinist theory of "socialism in one country" and claimed that, due to the "aggravation of class struggle under socialism," it was possible, even necessary, to build socialism in one country alone. This departure from Marxist internationalism was challenged by Leon Trotsky, whose theory of "permanent revolution" stressed the necessity of world revolution.

Trotskyism

Trotsky and his supporters organized into the "Left Opposition," and their platform became known as Trotskyism. But Stalin eventually succeeded in gaining full control of the Soviet regime, and their attempts to remove Stalin from power resulted in Trotsky's exile from the Soviet Union in 1929. After Trotsky's exile, world communism fractured in two distinct branches: Stalinism and Trotskyism. Trotsky later founded the Fourth International, a Trotskyist rival to the Comintern, in 1938.
Though some follow Trotskyism today, Trotsky's theories were never reaccepted in Communist circles in the Soviet bloc, even after Stalin's death; and Trotsky's interpretation of communism has not been successful in leading a political revolution that would overthrow a state. However, Trotskyist ideas have occasionally found an echo among political movements in countries experiencing social upheavals (such is the case of Alan Woods' Trotskyist Committee for a Marxist International, which has had contact with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela), most parties are active in politically stable, developed countries (such as Great Britain, France, Spain and Germany). It is noteworthy that Trotskyists groups that contribute with pro-capitalist parties have not escaped criticism as opportunists from other Trotskyists which are loathe to do so (see Trotskyism).

Cold War years

As the Soviet Union won important allies by victory in the Second World War in Eastern Europe, communism as a movement spread to a number of new countries, and gave rise to a few different branches of its own, such as Maoism.
Communism had been vastly strengthened by the winning of many new nations into the sphere of Soviet influence and strength in Eastern Europe. Governments modeled on Soviet Communism were formed in Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Romania. A Communist government was also created under Marshal Tito in Yugoslavia, but Tito's independent policies led to the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Cominform, which had replaced the Comintern, and Titoism, a new branch in the world communist movement, was labeled "deviationist."
By 1950 the Chinese Communists held all of China except Taiwan, thus controlling the most populous nation in the world. Other areas where rising Communist strength provoked dissension and in some cases actual fighting include Laos, many nations of the Middle East and Africa, and, especially, Vietnam (see Vietnam War). With varying degrees of success, Communists attempted to unite with nationalist and socialist forces against Western imperialism in these poor countries.

Maoism

After the death of Stalin in 1953, the Soviet Union's new leader, Nikita Khrushchev, denounced Stalin's crimes and his cult of personality. He called for a return to the principles of Lenin, thus presaging some change in Communist methods. However, Khrushchev's reforms heightened ideological differences between China and the Soviet Union, which became increasingly apparent in the 1960s and 1970s. As the Sino-Soviet Split in the international Communist movement turned toward open hostility, Maoist China portrayed itself as a leader of the underdeveloped world against the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with Maoism gaining recognition worldwide as a new branch of Marxism.

Collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism today

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became leader of the Soviet Union and relaxed central control, in accordance with reform policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). The Soviet Union did not intervene as Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary all abandoned Communist rule by 1990. In 1991, the Soviet Union itself dissolved.
By the beginning of the 21st century, Communist parties hold power in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. President Vladimir Voronin of Moldova is a member of the Communist Party of Moldova, but the country is not run under one-party leadership. However, China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy; and China, Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. Communist parties, or their descendent parties, remain politically important in many European countries and throughout the Third World, particularly in India.
Theories within Marxism as to why communism in Eastern Europe was not achieved after socialist revolutions pointed to such elements as the pressure of external capitalist states, the relative backwardness of the societies in which the revolutions occurred, and the emergence of a bureaucratic stratum or class that arrested or diverted the transition press in its own interests. Marxist critics of the Soviet Union referred to the Soviet system, along with other Communist states, as "state capitalism," arguing that Soviet system fell far short of Marx's communist ideal. They argued that the state and party bureaucratic elite acted as a surrogate capitalist class in the heavily centralized and repressive political apparatus.
Non-Marxists, in contrast, have often applied the term to any society ruled by a Communist Party and to any party aspiring to create a society similar to such existing nation-states. In the social sciences, societies ruled by Communist Parties are distinct for their single party control and their socialist economic bases. While anticommunists applied the concept of "totalitarianism" to these societies, many social scientists identified possibilities for independent political activity within them, and stressed their continued evolution up to the point of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe during the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Today, Marxist revolutionaries are active in India, Nepal, and Colombia.

Market Reforms of Modern Communists

Contrary to communist theory proposed by Marx and Engles, and later adapted by Lenin, Stalin, 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 [6].
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." [7]
Several other communist led countries have also made pro market reforms in the last few decades including Vietnam and Russia; each to varying degress of aggression and sucess.
"Communism" or "communism"?
According to the 1996 third edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, communism and derived words are written with the lowercase "c" except when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, in which case the word "Communist" is written with the uppercase "C".
Criticism of communism
Main article: Criticisms of communism.
A diverse array of writers and political activists have published anticommunist work, such as Soviet bloc dissidents Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Vaclav Havel; economists Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman; and historians and social scientists Hannah Arendt, Robert Conquest, Daniel Pipes and R. J. Rummel, to name a few. Some writers such as Conquest go beyond attributing large-scale human rights abuses to Communist regimes, presenting events occurring in these countries, particularly under Stalin, as an argument against the ideology of Communism itself.
It should be noted that these are criticisms of Communist parties and states they have ruled, rather than criticisms of communism as such. It should also be noted that many Communist parties outside of the Warsaw Pact (i.e. Communist parties in Western Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa) differed greatly, therefore no single criticism fits all.
See also
Communist state

Anti-communism

Criticisms of communism

Post-Communism
Schools of communism
Anarchist communism

Council communism

De Leonism

Eurocommunism

Hoxhaism

Juche

Left communism

Luxembourgism

Marxism

Marxism-Leninism

Maoism

Stalinism

Trotskyism
Organizations and people
Communist Party

List of Communist parties

List of Communists
Further reading
Fernando Claudin, The Communist Movement: From Comintern to Cominform (1975)

Pipes, Richard, "Communism", London, (2001), ISBN 0-297-64688-5
External links
Online resources for original Marxist literature
Marxists Internet Archive

Libertarian Communist Library

Marxist.net

Theses on Feuerbach

Principles of Communism

The Communist Manifesto

The Civil War in France

Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

Reform or Revolution?

What is to be Done?

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution

Materialism and Empirio-Criticism

The Right of Nations to Self-Determination

Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism

The State and Revolution

The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution

The Tasks of the Proletariat In Our Revolution
[[Category:Communism]] [[Category:Political theories]] [[Category:Society]] [[Category:Economic ideologies]] [[ar:شيوعية]] [[bg:Комунизъм]] [[zh-min-nan:Kiōng-sán-chú-gī]] [[be:Камунізм]] [[ca:Comunisme]] [[cs:Komunismus]] [[da:Kommunisme]] [[de:Kommunismus]] [[et:Kommunism]] [[es:Comunismo]] [[eo:Komunismo]] [[fa:کمونیسم]] [[fr:Communisme]] [[ga:Cumannachas]] [[gl:Comunismo (política)]] [[ko:공산주의]] [[id:Komunisme]] [[it:Comunismo]] [[he:קומוניזם]] [[lt:Komunizmas]] [[mk:Комунизам]] [[ms:Komunisme]] [[nl:Communisme]] [[nds:Kommunismus]] [[ja:共産主義]] [[no:Kommunisme]] [[nn:Kommunisme]] [[pl:Komunizm]] [[pt:Comunismo]] [[ro:Comunism]] [[ru:Коммунизм]] [[simple:Communism]] [[sk:Komunizmus]] [[sl:Komunizem]] [[sr:Комунизам]] [[fi:Kommunismi]] [[sv:Kommunism]] [[vi:Chủ nghĩa Cộng sản]] [[tr:Komünizm]] [[uk:Комунізм]] [[zh:共产主义]]

-

Great Depression & FairTax
Sorry I edited your FairTax submission but it was a little POV. I'm an advocate myself but I had to tweak it a bit. While I agree that the FairTax is progressive, it is a debated point and discussed a little further down the article. Read your Bio - Thought you might like these audio streams for your debate on the Great Depression. As I'm sure you know, FEE is an excellent resource for those that hold classic liberalism views and appreciate liberty. Three Startling Myths about FDR and the New Deal & Myths of the Great Depression Morphh 20:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With your recent post in "Indirect Effects", I think you duplicated the 2nd paragraph under "Monthly Entitlement Checks". I did not know if this was intentional or not. Also in this post, the prebate checks are not given to all members of society. They are only given to legal residents of the U.S. Perhaps you were referring to income levels? Morphh 02:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 enterprise, 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 [8].
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." [9]
Hi, The first sentence I think still needs to be redone. If you refer to "Communism as a theory" at all, it is suspect. Who is the interpretter of communist theory? You? The Chinese Communist party? Me? Second, the part "communism as practiced" does assume a particular POV, i.e. the POV that the Chinese CP practices communism. Putting two problems together in one sentence doesn't cancel them out.
The sencond sentence refers to "communist China". I think it would be more neutral to say "The Peoples Republic of China" and if necessary, add something to the effect, "the ruling party of which describes itself as Communist..."
Other than these two objections, I think this edit is accurate. I would favor adding it to the article, provided the two points mentioned are changed, (and possibly the section title) Of course I'm willing to hear the opinions of others...(BostonMA 18:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I'm refering there, to communism as a theory as it originated. NO markets whatsoever. No private ownership whatsover. Communism as practiced refers to those who call themselves communist rhetorically but in practice do something different than the theory, such as allow the ownership of small private farms, money systems, or state ownership of industry. I think this is fine as is.
Second remark, that is doable.
(Gibby 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
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 [10].
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." [11]
SUGGESTED TITLES...add your own.
"Communism with market characteristics" [12] no hits!

"Market Oriented Communists" [13] 2 hits!

"Communism and Capitalism Today" [14] 11 hits!

Free Trade Communists
27 hits
Free Market Communists
109 hits (oh that was my original one)
Free Market Communism
178 hits http://www.google.com/search?hs=uwc&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=%22Free+Market+Communism%22&btnG=Search
Hey following your own logic the section "The growth of modern Communism" has only 158 hits http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22The+growth+of+modern+Communism%22&btnG=Google+Search should we get rid of it?
What do hits have to do with anything? Is this your way of determining original research? Because I hate to break it to you, but...titles are not research, they are titles (Gibby 22:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
Mattley AGREES, Title is settled
Using Mattley's logic Free Trade Communists gets 27 hits and cannot be used because it gets too few hits. Because his complaint with the page is only with the FMC section and its title, it must be assumed he has no complaints with any other title. Therefore logic dicatates that one must search for the titles that work and discover the appropriate hits to be included in this page.
"The Growth of Modern Communism" gets 158 hits.
Therefore anything with 158 or more should be included.
Therefore, "Free Market Communism" which has 178 hits, should be included.
Thanks for your input Mattley!!!!
(Gibby 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC))
Free Market Communism
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 [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]
Market Reforms of Modern Communists
Contrary to communist theory proposed by Marx and Engles, and later adapted by Lenin, Stalin, 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].
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." [18]
Several other self proclaimed communist countries have also made pro market reforms in the last few decades including Vietnam and Russia; each to varying degress of aggression and sucess.

If you wish to talk about the market reforms of various communist states, shouldn't this go in the communist state article? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The communists would likely delete it there. If not, 172, Mattley, and Nadi would track me over there and delete it on more bogus grounds (Gibby 07:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
There are two Chinese states
Kindly stop referring to the People's Republic of China as "China". There are two states within China, each of which assert their independence. Kindly use the proper addressment, as it is very offensive otherwise. You have no respect for the situation, it seems. To claim that the entire culture and nation of China is currently subject to one Neo-Bolshevik administration and completely ignoring the other state not only insults Chinese culture, but shows your insensitivity to a nation that is de jure in civil war. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to the Peoples Republic of China, the United States, or the United Nations...the official policy is ONE CHINA. ^_^ Encyclopedias are not meant to rub peoples backs or sugar coat issues.(Gibby 07:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
The ideal, is of course one China, but at this present moment there remains two. In the encyclopedia, as part as the NPOV policy, it would be very kind to stop referring to "China". In the Black Book of Communism, it wasn't China that killed 65 million people since 1949 (whether their figures are true or not): it was the People's Republic of China that did. It's not China that implements Special Economic Zones, it is the People's Republic of China. Ignoring this fact supports the point of view of Chinese reunification under the Gongchandang, which is an entirely biased view and violates the NPOV policy. Please refrain from referring to the People's Republic of China as "China" in the future. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Encylopedeas do not have to be politically correct but factually accurate. It is factually accurate to refrence one china as it is factually accurate to mention that some people believe their are 2. Other than that I do not care, nor should anyone care if you get offended. Being offended does not violate NPOV policy. Stop making crap up. (Gibby 07:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
No, it is not a fact there is one China. That is a POV. It's not about merely about the offensiveness, it is an NPOV violation because it supports the POV of Chinese reunification under the Gongchandang in favour over Chinese reunification under the Kuomintang, or complete independence under the DPP. See how the articles China and People's Republic of China are separate articles? They are distinct entities. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it is a fact, there is only one recognized china, that is not a pov that is documentented international policy...just as their is no recognized indpendent palistinian state. Or do you make up your own international law along with wiki rules? (Gibby 07:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
Again Palestine and Israel are separate articles. Ho-hum. International policy remains a POV, even a majority one. There are some who contest it. Remember how you said that minority views should not be excluded? Here is blatant hypocrisy for you. Just kindly use the term PRC in the future, then all will be well. In this area. It isn't that hard. They are separate articles anyway, so even without the NPOV violation, you need to disambig it. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat myself: Encylopedeas do not have to be politically correct but factually accurate. It is factually accurate to refrence one china as it is factually accurate to mention that some people believe their are 2. Other than that I do not care, nor should anyone care if you get offended. Being offended does not violate NPOV policy. Stop making crap up. (Gibby 07:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
When people refer to china they always understand it as PRC...unless your some hyper sensative person with a prebuilt pov. No one but certain segments of global society refers to Taiwan as China for example. (Gibby 07:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
That there is one China is not a fact. It's not about political correctness (in fact, it doesn't matter): it is a fact, that there are two Chinese political entities. A fact. It is a fact, that both of them assert themselves as the true China. International diplomacy favours the PRC, but Wikipedia isn't here to kowtow to international relationships. It is here to write an encyclopedia. Fact remains: there are two Chinese entities, and you need to disambig them anyway, POV violation or not. I am NOT talking about being offended or being politically correct. I am talking about the fact that referring to the PRC as "China" constitutes supporting the point of view of Chinese reunification under the Gongchandang, and therefore constitutes an NPOV violation. I am not being hypersensitive: on the contrary, your insensitivity to this situation demonstrates exactly why you run into problems with everybody at Wikipedia. I am not talking about referring to the ROC as "China". ROC isn't the China. The PRC isn't the China. China is made up of two distinct entities. Plenty of people refer to China when they mean China before 1949 (or perhaps 1928, or 1911, before the civil war)....many people refer to the PRC as "communist China". Tolerable. Many people refer to the PRC as China because they are lazy. But when reminded about it, it is proper etiquette to write it as "People's Republic of China". Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only in a few minds. Almost everyone refers to the PRC as China, politically, internationally, socially, scolastically, and by definition. These articles arent about statisyfing your sensetive POVs, get over it! Though I think this has more to do finding minute details to complain about. (Gibby 07:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Especially considering I wrote PRC before mentioning China alone in the section just above tihs...you've got no damn complaint. Its perfectly legimate to write in that style....(Gibby 07:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
Actually, very few people do. It is not my POV, the entire encyclopedia so far segregates the PRC and China. Even without the POV issue, I have again said: kindly stop referring to the PRC as China in the article namespace so I don't have to correct your edits everytime you do it. The way you discount the Taiwanese people (as a few minds) shows your insensitivity and your systemic bias as in the Western Hemisphere as it seems, who could care less about Chinese culture. Even my Chinese teacher (laoshi), who passionately supports Chinese reunification doesn't refer to the PRC as China, accepting statements of two China's (while being particularly vehement about it, of course). If you are already mentioning it, (which you only do because it was brought up) then fine: continuing doing so. It is lazy, not legitimate to write in the style. It is forgivable to write in that style, but not technically correct. People sometimes refer to a quadratic equation when they mean quadratic function and so forth, or use them interchangeably, and that is perhaps out of laziness, but when reminded about it, it does matter in distinction. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that not all people of Taiwan are Chinese? Especially those poor Taiwanese who were killed by the Nationalists upon their "takeover" of the island... Or do you really not care about offending them and their decendents? (Gibby 07:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html http://www.google.com/search?hs=ha6&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=map+of+China&btnG=Search
Or do you just like arguing over stupid crap? (Gibby 08:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
It's not about political offense. Did I know that? Of course, it has been taught since primary school. Did you have to insult me by saying I did not? Even if some Taiwanese are not Han Chinese, China extends over Tibet, the Hui Chinese (Muslims) and Taiwan (before 1911) anyway, and that doesn't remove the fact that there are two political entities who assert themselves as the true China. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and that doesnt negate the fact that google searches of CHINA lend one to find PRC China because most people on the planet refer to PRC china as just China, including academics, journalists, pundits, and politicians... Its so not a big deal to me anyway that you can go edit all the chinas into PRC china if you so choose I wont stop you. (Gibby 08:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
Well fine. It would be helpful if you simply disambig'ed your statements. Many people do refer to the PRC as China out of laziness - but not most. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Death toll
Gibby, I suggest you take a look at this: [19]. The page contains detailed estimates for hundreds of mass killings from hundreds of sources. I sincerely doubt you could find anything that isn't already listed there. Note that the lower estimates for Stalin are around 3.5 million, and those for Mao are around 19.5 million. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 14:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From that webpage:
Rudolph J. Rummel, Death By Government
* "Democides" - Government inflicted deaths (1900-87) o 169,198,000 o Including: + Communist Oppression: 110,286,000 + Democratic democides: 2,028,000 * Not included among democides: o Wars: 34,021,000 o Non-Democidal Famine (often including famines associated with war and communist mismanagement): + China (1900-87): 49,275,000 + Russia: (1921-47): 5,833,000 * Total: o 258,327,000 for all the categories listed here.
Me (Matthew White, Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, 2001):
* Deaths by War and Oppression: o Genocide and Tyranny: + 83,000,000 o Military Deaths in War: + 42,000,000 o Civilian Deaths in War: + 19,000,000 o Man-made Famine: + 44,000,000 o TOTAL: + 188,000,000 * FAQ: How did you get these totals? * (Note: It's commonly said that more civilians than soldiers die in war, but you may notice that my numbers don't seem to agree with that. Before you jump to any conclusions, however, remember that most civilian deaths in war are intentional, and therefore fall into the "genocide and tyranny" category. Many others are the result of starvation.) * My estimate for the Communist share of the century's unpleasantness: o Genocide & Tyranny: 44M + (incl. intentional famine) o Man-made Famine: 37M + (excl. intentional famine) o Communist-inspired War (for example the Russian Civil War, Vietnam, Korea, etc.) + Military: 5M + Civilian: 6M + NOTE: With these numbers, I'm tallying every combat death and accidental civilian death in the war, without differentiating who died, who did it or who started it. According to whichever theory of Just War you are working from, the Communists may be entirely blameless, or entirely to blame, for these 11M dead. o TOTAL: 92M deaths by Communism. o RESIDUE: 96M deaths by non-Communism.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.... (Gibby 15:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin take a look again, he says Stalin's regime was responsible for 20 million deaths that is about 17 million more than you said when you sent me this link. (Gibby 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC))
Uh, most civilian deaths in war are usually not intentional, but the result of collateral damage. I mean, otherwise I could argue the United States killed all those thousands of civilians in Iraq "intentionally". I don't think they did, but if you want to play that game, fine. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: It's commonly said that more civilians than soldiers die in war, but you may notice that my numbers don't seem to agree with that. Before you jump to any conclusions, however, remember that most civilian deaths in war are intentional, and therefore fall into the "genocide and tyranny" category. Many others are the result of starvation.)
That is his personal opinion. Perhaps he is a leftist, or perhaps he's noting that tyranical regimes typically do kill civilians on purpose. The Soviet Union was not above murdering and raping civilians in towns they conquered. (Gibby 15:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC))
"liberal democracy" controversial term?
Regarding the pov article economics of fascism where you have made two edits inserting "self-described" before "liberal democratic states:" I believe that adding reference to the fringe libertarian opinion is more pov then leaving the statement as is.
Liberal Democracy (and Fascism) are quantitative terms, and by nature do not reflect on a concrete ideological view point. I believe there is a list of qualities which are common in liberal democratic states. What I think you should notice about the term is that the term reflects on reality. The term does not define a concrete set of ideological values. It is simply a term to catagorise a group of countries with similar (but not the same) governance structures. Stating that there is controversy regarding what the term should mean is irrelevent, as the term is used to define connections in reality. ...same with the terms "fascist" or "communist" etc.--sansvoix 00:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
stating that you can be a liberal democracy with central command economies is an oxymoron. One which politicians and populists have not bothered to reconcile because of the tangeble benefits of labeling themselves or being associated with liberalism. (Gibby 05:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC))
You are allowed to have that opinion. What I am telling you is the academic interpretation of "liberal democracy." It is a word used to catagorise those similar countries governance structures, it is not refering to an exact set of values. The free-market fundamentalist point of view has no place in the introduction, and I think wikipedia policy will agree with me on that. --sansvoix 07:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
considering this is an article on libertarianism the tone of your statement is an intentional ironic pov smack against something I believe you disagree with.(Gibby 07:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC))
I changed the tone, I see your point. Why didn't you say that at the start? The sentance gives important context, it is factual and relevent.--sansvoix 08:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
time test(Gibby 17:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC))

Stop removing the tags please and away with your accusations of vandalism > that's poppycock. We HAVE been discussing the page and you have a lot of cheek jumping in when you have not contributed much except your own illogical POV:
"fascist economies had in place price and wage controlls, government owned and run enterprises, macroeconomic like government investment into private enterprise. Hitler's government even worked to elievate poverty and create jobs. ............ (Gibby 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)) "
All these things have been done by ALL western capitalist including mature liberal democracies - it does not follow that that they are therefore economically fascist. All these things happened in society and economies well before the rise of the coining of the term Fascist. -- max rspct leave a message 19:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the article is not claiming that "capitalist liberal democracies" implementing the same economic prefrences as fascists are fascists themselves. You are letting your ideological prefrence for those outcomes cloud your judgement. THe article merely points out the economics of fascist countries and has a final segmenet that mentions critics who conclude/link/compare/associate "liberal democracies" economic prefrences with that of fascist economic prefrences.
There is nothing for you to dispute except that you do not want your own prefrences equated with fascism...but it is too late, it has already been done, cited, sourced, and mentioned hundreds of times by respected journalists, scholars, politicians, historians. Etc.
you dont have to beleive it but you do have to include mentioning and citing it. (Gibby 20:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
Economics of Fascism
Simply stating you have a complaint with no specifics of that complaint does not constitute sufficient reason to place a tag. YOU MUST GIVE SPECIFICS. Having done NONE OF THIS, this makes me think the only thing you want to do is discredit the article rather than editing it to make it better.

It is also disputed that we can actually call ourselves "liberal" democracies given the gross violation of liberal principles by these democracies. Your dispute is based off of your own pov prefrence for the policies connected to fascism. THIS IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO DISPUTE!(Gibby 19:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea)

sansvoix

The Land

Max rspct

James James
Are all guilty of vandalism on the page Economics of Fascism as each has worked to place tags on the page with little to no discussion in the last several days dispite requests for discussion and specific points of disagreement. The best they can muster is statements that regard the page as propoganda. This is not good enough. These are just more examples of Wiki bullies who work together to ruin articles and revert without discussion. YOU DO NOT NEED TO DICUSS ANYTHING if you have a majority of editors on your side, you can simply delete all opposition until they give up. THESE EDITORS ARE BULLIES. TheLand is also in violation of his admin position for blocking me while in dispute with me. This is not surprising this is not the first time I have been blocked by editors who have ideological differences and bend wiki rules to protect their own prefrences. (Gibby 19:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
There has been plenty. From private property and laissez-faire sections high up in the article to the various contries (each with own section ) and then down to USA and New Deal. Read the talkpage..The article is often rearranged.. every section is disputed... please stop having tantrum Gibby -- max rspct leave a message 21:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not having a tantrum I am demanding higher quality and more specifics out of your complaints, I also demand less stupidity. *"Fringe views" according to your own opinino is not suffecient.
Libertarian sources is also not suffecient.
This article has been heavily edited to try and remove any percieved pov, but other than bitching and demanding its elimination people like you have done nothing. ADD IN YOUR OWN CRITICISM IF YOU CAN CITE IT, CLAIMING THAT THE NEW DEAL, or whatever else you complain about, IS NOT FASCISM!!! TRY IT!!!
If you cant do that, get some better excuses. Seriously! (Gibby 21:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Boiler Plates
I would like to express the fact it's you who've been reverting without discussion: you rant about how problematic is, but not the actual problems in itself, and carry out the discussion within edit summaries. A number of edits dispute your additions, by the way, so do not remove the boiler plate. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THat is incorrect, I go through the discussion page, read the arguements, determine the merits check the dates and if it is out of date or of the reasons are bogus for example "THIS IS PROPOGANDA" with nothing else mentioned then I know it is not a legit excuse for such a plate.
You however have seriousl problems when such plates with legitimate discussion are put on your favored articles like Communism or that other bogus form of communism you like that was labled O.R. by some other editors, but you have no problem placing these plates on anything you disagree with. You have done this time and time again. And if it werent for the fact that you whine and complain to your leftist friends you wouldnt accomplish anything because the only thing you have is numerical superiority to dominate certain articles. (Gibby 20:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
The problem is that you cite Wal-Mart's "rebuttals" (and half of them are unverified with no references) as fact, when it's just a statement. This violates NPOV. An addition can be marked as POV - however marking an entire article as POV just because it doesn't include one specific section on free market communists is not. You claim "wikibullying", but apparently you don't know about User:Ultramarine, and all the other editors who in fact, are not leftist, are rather right-wing, and that we just want to write a good article, not force POV down people's throats, as you have been doing. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BS, all statements are verified. You havent even checked the links. Each link is there for a reason, usually to support the preceeding sentence. There is no violation of NPOV because NPOV does not mean IT MUST AGREE WITH YOU. You disagree because you dont like the implications of the rebuttal you dont like that you might be wrong. I am also not surprised that you all bother to discuss things with me once I'm blocked and have no ability to express these on the actual page. I call bullshit once again! (Gibby 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

NOTE FOR ALL USERS, RIGHT, LEFT, or LIBERTARIAN. PLACING TAGS ON ARTICLES REQUIRES YOU TO START A DISCUSSION LISTING YOUR COMPLAINTS ON THE SECTION OR ARTICLE. COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NO DEEPER THAN IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES ARE NOT SUFFECIENT TO WARRANT THE TAG. NPOV DOES NOT MEAN IT MUST AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GOD NOR HAS ANYONE DECLARED THAT YOU ARE THE SOLE DETERMINATE FOR WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG IN THE WORLD.
STOP ABUSING BOILER PLATES WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH FELLOW EDITORS! (Gibby 07:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
Che Guevara
This keeps getting deleted by leftwingers on bogus grounds. The paragraph preceding this paragraph does not have the detail nor citations as this one.
These critics argue that a mythical legend has grown around the revolutionary leader that clouds much of history. They hold that Che's reputation is undeserved, that he had no particularly admirable qualities and that he was neither an inspiring personality, nor even a good military tactician. Some believe that Che's present reputation was deliberately engineered by Fidel Castro. New York Sun writer, Williams Myers, labels Che as a “sociopathic thug”. It is said the Che Guevara was personally responsible for the torture and execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons and responsible for the ordering of executions of thousands more. Others note the Guevara was more than a thuggish murder but also a blundering tactician, not a revolutionary genius, who has not one recorded combat victory. They also point out that Che failed medical school in Argentina and that there is no evidence he actually ever earned a medical degree. Some soldiers state that prior to Che's capture on October 8 1967, he shouted to them "Do not shoot! I am Che Guevara and worth more to you alive than dead" and he is not executed until October 9 where his last words were reported to be "Know this now, you are killing a man." See: [20] ,[21], [22], [23] [24],[25]
All the prominent newspaper articles (ie. USAToday) doesn't say anything about his failed medical degree. In fact the only one does that is frontpagemag, and it says very little on it. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Frontpage Magazine isnt the only one that has mentioned it. I've read it in several other places in the last several years including the National Review (not my favorite magazine but it is credible). Your complaints, as usual, are bogus, and have little to do with what is written and more to do with you disagreeing with the information. (Gibby 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
The onus is on you to provide a more credible source. All of these are editorials anyway - ie. not from historians. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

yes lucky for you your side of the equation has plenty of credible sources repeating bogus information on about everything. (Gibby 21:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
A non pov non redudant addition to the criticsim of Che section of the Che Guevara page that will be added later.
There are critics of Ernesto "Che" Guevara who believe his legend is undeserved. New York Sun writer, Williams Myers, labels Che as a “sociopathic thug”. Other's say Che Guevara was more monster than hero stating that he was personally responsible for the torture and execution of hundreds of people in Cuban prisons and the murder of many more peasants in the regions controlled or visited by his guerrilla forces. They also believe that Guevara was also a blundering tactician, not a revolutionary genius, who has not one recorded combat victory. Some critics also believe that Che failed medical school in Argentina and that there is no evidence he actually ever earned a medical degree. [26] ,[27], [28], [29] [30] ,[31],[32]
Wal-Mart
Complainers of the Criticism of Critics section are once again, focusing on bogus bullshit to complain about. Everything in their is properly cited and when they demand explination of why certain links are there they delete said explination or call the paragraph original research.
STATING THAT SUBSIDIES ARE THE RESULT OF GOVERNMENT CREATION NOT WAL-MART CREATION IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH
POINTING OUT THAT WAL-MART IS A RETAIL STORE, which is also documented throughout the article, NOT AN OWNER OF FACTORIES is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH
These complaining editors are abusing wiki rules to eliminate any opposition they have.
They are also abusing my block period to make reverts and to pretend as if they are discussing...YET THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO DISCUSS UNTIL I AM NO LONGER ABLE TO PARTICIPATE!
No, rather Wal-Mart points that out, not Wikipedia. Cite it as Wal-Mart's view. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Wal-Mart's view that governments create corporate subsidies? No, thats just a fact. Governments do create corporate subsidies, I am leaving out the POV that it is a fallacious arguement to blame Wal-Mart for recieving corporate subsidies created by governments, but stating that governments create subsidies is not a pov its a freaking fact!!! I put in a link because of moronic complaints demanding a source, then there was a complaint by Mattley I believe who didnt understand why the source was there despite demanding a source to cite the claim that governments create subsidies then once I put the explination so readers can get more info on who creates subsidies that link is deleted. What is happening is the excuse run around.
Stop lying just tell the truth.
You all don't want this section in because you think Wal-Mart is a nasty monster and you dont want facts that contradict your own views. You'll do anything to bend the rules, harrass other users, revert, or bs your way into getting your desired political prefrences and opinion to dominate every page you touch.
(Gibby 07:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
Gibby - I never went near the "governments create subsidies" section and I have not raised that issue in discussion. Instead I took out three specific pieces of misinformation.

"Wal-Mart: the High Cost of Low Price" suggests "Wal-Mart factories" were in poor condition and that Wal-Mart factory workers were subject to abuse and inhumane conditions. Wal-Mart says it is a retail store and owns no factories and creates no products of its own. [33]

The first sentence imputes a suggestion to the Wal-Mart documentary. How do we know it suggests this? We only have your word for it. The inferences to be drawn from a documentary are subjective. What this section really wants to do is criticise the documentary, but the same rules apply for that as for everything else. Has the documentary been widely criticised by notable commentators for making this 'false' suggestion - or is it just you? Original research, Gibby. Original research. The second sentence poses a more direct source problem. The source follows a "Wal-Mart says" statement, but in the document linked Wal-Mart does not say what is attributed to it. It makes no statement regarding non-ownership of factories.

*The store does performs inspections at factories with which it does business to ensure humane working conditions. [34]

Again, the source says nothing of the kind. If you follow the link, what you get is a lot of platitudes about how firms working with Wal-Mart are expected to live up to Wal-Mart standards and obey all laws and regulations and how WalMart is apparently developing monitoring systems to ensure contractors that do business with [Wal-Mat] comply with all relevant laws and regulations. Developing monitoring systems - the nature of which is not specified - is hardly the same as carrying out factory inspections.

According to Jay Nordlinger of the National Review, Wal-Mart executives did know that the company was using illegal aliens as contractors because they had been helping the Federal government with the investigation for the previous three years. Some critics argued that Wal-Mart personally hired illegal aliens when in fact they were employees of contractors who won bids to work for Wal-Mart.[35]

What is this supposed to be a source for? The implication is that it supports the whole paragraph, but the source says nothing about Jay Nordlinger and the "WalMart was helping the government" claim. Where is the source for that? All the source supports is the final statement that the illegal aliens were employed by subcontractors rather than employed directly by Wal-Mart. But again, who said otherwise? You are refuting the alleged claims of persons who you do not specify. How do we know this is not a strawman argument created to attack the credibility of Wal-Mart's critics. Mattley ^(Chattley) 11:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are are holding my edits to a higher standard than you apply to what you agree with. This is a pov in and of itself. You are doing this as specious reasons for deleting my contributions.
I can always provide a link to that documentary, you can also check out reviews if you dont like. Stating what a documentary said is not original research.
I will provide you the national review article date and time if you wish[36] The other link was for the second sentence.
Your complaints are minor and petty. (Gibby 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
On the contrary, ironically you find minor and petty points upon which to violate WP:POINT on to prove your point. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This [37] is not "fixing" my complaints. You have added the Nordlinger link (which, by the way, is to a subscription-only service) but ignored all the rest. Read my comments again. They are not petty at all. They demonstrate that these sections are unsupported original research. Mattley ^(Chattley) 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you know the date and time of the article so you can check it out...you can't exactly post the entire text of a book on here can you? Your complaints are starting to get rediculous, and that is more rediculous than claiming sections can't stay because there are not enough google hits.
And they are not original research you just are incapable of reading the selected links for some reason. Everything stated is cited. Some thigns are cited multple ways. (Gibby 04:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
List of Wiki Bullies
The following is my compiled list of Wiki Bullies, aka those who gang up using superiority of numbers to delete and revert pages to their own prefrences while avoiding almost all attempts at discussing disputes.
Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea)

sansvoix

The Land

Max rspct

James James

172

Mattley

Natalinasmpf

BabuBhatt

Rhobite

TrulyTory
Not surprisingly most of these are suspected to be leftists/conservative (aka lovers of big government, socialism, communism, e'tatism, corpratism, tariffs, income taxes, FDR, the NEW DEAL etc etc etc) of some sort, thus they desire to eliminate any points by libertarians (me)or other editors with contradictory views.
Also note they will bring up, mostly baseless, charges against you just before they pretend to attempt a compromise with you. No one is serious enough to actually research the truth, but the above will put more than enough effort into discrediting you with the hopes that most people don't bother figuring out things for themselves. Again, like most tattletails and brats, the person who rats first usually wins.
discusion
You realise I'm a libertarian socialist. And I really like how you grouped the conservatives and the leftists together, despite them being almost totally different ideologies. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron... You cannot support freedom and individuality and limited government with socialist economic control. Period. (Gibby 21:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
That is because you have a narrow-minded definition of socialism, and you associate it with welfare, central/planned economics, et al. There was the entire nature of the commune - I suppose you have heard of the Spanish Revolution, a society which worked well until the Fascists came. You assume that socialism must repress in order for altruistic economic flow to take place. It is based on cooperation, with minimal coercion which again, this coercion can be used with ostracism, which is basically your right as you have a right to stop giving to somebody because it is the product of your labour. However, this is of course something that should be exercised with discernment, because cooperation is in the entire nature of a gift economy. Then of course, there is the entire redefinition of what labor encompasses. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it must repress, that is inherent in the system. Unless you have free market economic freedom you do not have freedom you have forms of repression and tyranny. The only way for socialism to work as a system of freedom is to make it a voluntaristic system, but by doing such it will never be very large and only a small percentage of the entire population. And gift economy is something that will not work unless all members of that society have agreed do it, thus it requires voluntarism to work. Only small segments of people are willing to engage in such a system so in order to make it work for a country you must repress and force all other members into it.
I'm afraid that is how rationality works. Socialism does not have strong incentives to attract or retain people unless said incentives are rewards from immediate death. (Gibby 04:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
It is of course a voluntaristic system. I have never been an advocate of forced collectivism. Again, the Spanish Revolution was an economic success, if not for the right-wing Fascists under Francisco Franco. Have you read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell? So many people cite his works Animal Farm and 1984 as an argument against communism, not realising it's an argument against Stalinism. A gift economy starts small - then expands - just like Wikipedia started small and recruited volunteers. Just like open source (to establish a status quo). A gift economy works within a country, its members may in fact compose it within an existing country (just having to pay taxes and so forth). At worst, it will not force its ideology on an unwilling majority, but rather secede and break away from its mother country (and war would ensue), although ideally the majority would join.
Would it work? Again, the Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution. They both rose up in times of military turmoil, which was unfortunate coincidence. It is because of military fascists that these movements did not live until today; it is because of Stalin that he wiped out 90% of the anarchists. The incentive remains - reciprocal altruism is here. There is the incentive of doing work because it is play, rather than seeing it as an obligation - becaue of the inherent reward of doing work for the community for its own sake. The problem of the Free Rider can be easily resolved with ostracism, which again is exercising individual rights, while the community is bonded together against exploitation by using those rights to suppress another's, while individuals have a right to stop giving to someone they see as a parasite (since it's their labour, anyway). The key difference is in social culture, not loss of rights, but the gain of them to be protected against a repressive state. You need to revise your definition of socialism, because the idea that is repressive must be something you were force-fed all along. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, while you ostracise most people out of your society, I'll accept them into my free market capitalist profit driven society, and many of these free-riders will become productive citizens thanks to their new found incentive to build wealth...an incentive they will not find in your fantasy. (Gibby 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
KDRGibby, I hope you realise those are the people who have a natural inclination to be lazy. Gift economics would pressure for their reform; and it's hardly "most". Besides, gift economies should be composed of the willing anyway - the free riders aren't willing. I hardly see a problem here. They shouldn't even have joined it in the first place. The incentive to build wealth exists in a gift economy, because it's a form of reciprocal altruism, because the influx of wealth comes in from the community, in a sort of reciprocal relationship in which work is done for the community. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, these people have been turned into free riders because there is more of an incentive to free ride than be a productive member. There is no incentive to participate in a gift economy or a communist economy accept for some personal mental benefit shared by a very small percentage of people who think they are doing what is right and best. There will also be no wealth creation mechanism or very large incentives to innovate and be effecient. Your system will fall apart very quickly and be reduced to a handful of people within 20 years. (Gibby 20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
What do you mean there is no wealth creation mechanism? If anything, gift economies have a stronger wealth creation system than free markets, because it eliminates all the growth caps. It does not require prices for economic transactions to take place, especially as products help fuel the addition of more products (ie. construction of hydroponics facilities helps increase food output, which then feeds back into the community, increasing its ability to construct even more facilities, and so on) ... under a free market system, the masses would have no such ability, and their education would be repressed, because they have to spend more time subsisting for themselves, with no appreciation of their potential as members of society. Free riders on the other hand, won't have any incentive to free ride - they just won't get gifts. If anything, it prevents free-riding, not through co-ercion, but through incentive that provision to the community yields altruistic reciprocity. Ostracism is a consequence of property rights within a gift economic context, anyway. You yourself support property rights. Gift economics keeps them, but individuals who use them un-necessarily also face others doing the same thing to them too (ie. individuals have the right to be jerks, but shouldn't be surprised if they do so and everyone acts the same way to them). For one, I see you have no idea what a gift economy is, you probably have heard of Bob Black, being the libertarian you are and that is what he suggests. You are only used to the idea of incentive by currency, but the highest good (for each individual) prevails. For why would eudamonia be sacrificed for something as little as power? After all, such things are means, not an end. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no incentive to create wealth when there is no mechanism for wealth or the information of wealth to be transmited. Prices are more than prices they are valuble pieces of information that transmit data all throughout the market. Who needs what, how much, where jobs go, who gets them, how much value do they add, what color an item should be.
Without prices no system will function for long...unless its a small group of people who enjoy the intangible benefits (as they percieve) of being in some small communist commune).
A gift economy will be incredibly ineffecient, it will not produce what society will want in the quanties it wants and will largly end up wasting resources by duplicating production. (Gibby 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Yes, but this information is replaced through another mechanism. The worker's neighbours (and beneficiaries) are likely to be the first direct target of production. Production won't be needlessly duplicated because it is again, adapted to the needs of the community, and the individuals in it. Other trends, such as those outside the immediate proximity of the worker, would still stream through, and just as appropriately, would matter (as they do not interact with the producer as often), but not be such a priority. Meeting such persons (whether it be travellers, or economic transactions between cities) and catering to the needs of such individuals. The medium again, is empathy, rather than price.
Oh, check out the Really really free market. And again, for allegations of bullying, you really should realise I've never interacted with half of the administrators or editors you put on that list, so it's hardly a cabal. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no one is going to go work when they can get whatever they want for free...period! (Gibby 21:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Ah, the one-liner. Terrific. Yet, again, the fact that two incentives remain, is ignored. The first, is that if the community is not supported, it withers away, at the expense of the individual, just as one would probably want to support their family even if their family gave them whatever they want or was willing to spoil them. Why? Because over time, if the unequal transactions occur, then eventually the beneficiary would be crippled and would be no longer able to continue. Therefore, the individual reciprocates to benefit their benefactors (neighbours, community et al.) as efficiently as possible. Secondly, the community is not always so willing to spoil its beneficiaries, and thus would withdraw gifts if the individual is judged to be unproductive. No single individual of course, has the power to declare an individual unproductive, but each individual who gives to the free rider is able to see that the free rider does not intend to become a productive member of the community. These are both tangible incentives. Many people do see the benefit of cooperation, or can be convinced to do so. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

um, the one time is the most simple reason why your system would never work. i really should have started with that and let you fumble through. The only incentive is for really altruistic people like yourself. No one else is going to want to work when there is no reason to work because they can get everything for free. Free rider problems will be so incredibly rampant. Even if we pretend that there is no free rider problem you still have to worry about how much goods people consumes, there is no way to transmit needs and desires so people will take as much as they can. Production cannot keep up with this false high demand.
And really, if you want cooperation start supporting free markets...now there is some powerful cooperation potential. (Gibby 22:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
II
Free market encourages competition, strife, and hoarding, not mutual benefit. It encourages suppression of economic components and the comitted destruction (quasi-war) of the economic products of other businesses, all for self-benefit. A culture of gift economics is the reverse, while maintaining incentive.
Why do you think there is no incentive for non-altruistic people? First, you still ignore the concept of eudaimonia. Secondly, benefitting the community benefits the benefactor; elements of gift economics exist today. A pure gift economy, however, is what I advocate. They can't get everything for free - the unproductive is unlikely to be even accepted as a member of the community, nor would they want to join in the first place. It would only attract those who see the benefit of cooperation, and those who see the benefit of cooperation are not necessarily altruistic. As for about the transmission of needs and desires, people will of course take as much as they can to continue economic production, with the pressure to reciprocate (and not waste) in order to avoid being seen as unproductive. There is an incentive to cater as much to mmebers of the community as possible - because otherwise, one would not be seen as productive (with the consequence of ostracism, ie. withdrawal of gifts). A revised concept of the nature of work is also in order, as it is not necessarily an obligation, but an act of play (ie. Bob Black). Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Competition is good, not bad. Competition ensures companies provide the best products they possibly can to consumers at the lowest price they possibly can, with the best customer service they possibly can. Under the capitalist system with competition companies must give consumers what they want because consumers pay companies voluntarily...they can always shop at competitors. The belief that competition was wasteful is an outdated belief that was ideologically squashed when Keynesianism failed the first go-around. Competition is a great thing.
Free market capitalism is by definition a mutually beneficial system. No body engages in transactions where they feel they will be made worse off.
If a person gets everything for free, they have no incentive to provide a product themselves. If your only incentive is a punishment, ie you will get banished, what is to stop people from taking more than they put in? More banishment? You've got no price system to transmit appropriate data...how much a good is valued, the value of factors of that good, the value of someones labor etc etc etc. What will happen in your system is a quick hoarding of everything consumable good and a barter economy will arise...if the people get smart they'll re=institute a money system...the only way your sytem will survive is among the most alturistic true beleivers of this "gift economy"
Gift economies only work for people who believe in them. And that is a very small segment of society. In a few decades that little micro society will be backwards and technologically inept compared to a capitalist world around it. (Gibby 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
Competition is only one way of driving individuals to do things, and it is a very bad one. Competition doesn't "ensure" anything, except the drive to be better than other individuals. This often translates to hate and a yearning to destroy one's economic opponents. Competition wastes resources that could be dedicated to pooling them. Neither does it restrict the individual's use of choices: should something be unsatisfactory, then a fork is easy to implement in a gift economy. Not however so (ie. starting a business) in a gift economy!
The idea that nobody engage in transactions where they will be made worse off is itself a fallacious idea, and a very assuming one. A free market tends to be a dog eat dog world; often individuals are forced to choose between the lesser of the two evils. It's not so much as being "worse off" as, not being able to have a much better transaction if they had more capita.
Just because a person got everything freely given does not mean that there is no incentive to produce. Do read my post again. The only incentive is not punishment. They aren't going to get "banished" in the normal sense of the word, because they wouldn't even get the gifts in the first place if the gift economy didn't exist! The incentive is that benefitting the community that benefits you would increase the benefits you receive in the long run. People would avoid stifling their benefactors if it would mean crippling them, because on the long run it would be better suited. A price system is a very primitive information system anyway - empathy is better suited. There will be priorities (food above toys, etc.) ... and perhaps the key difference is not merely who could pay more at that particular moment, but rather the persons and their character (therefore their economic potential in selfish terms) being the judge of priority. In a free market system one is only judged by how much cash a person has on hand at the moment (and loans provide an unsatisfactory, imperfect replacement). Hoarding every consumable good and consuming wastefully (as it is judged by the other individuals) would be seen as unproductive.
First, the community starts with altruistic members, which establishes the status quo of an altruistic culture. Non-altruism is a taught value, if not a value inadvertently "learnt" in capitalist society, although arguments can later convince them otherwise, non-cooperation is not an inherent nature - therefore the opposite applies. A barter economy is unlikely to arise because of the sheer inefficiency of it, and because economic stagnation would set in (and the people who used to prosper, ie. the farmers who were constantly expanding). Consider the prisoner's dilemma: because society is a reiterated prisoner's dilemma, the Nash equilibrium tends towards cooperation. Because the final outcome is far more beneficial with cooperation even with the choice to ruin, then the entire system tends towards cooperation. This justifies a gift economy.
Oh, open source projects such as Linux are examples of gift economies, and they are hardly "backwards" in that respect. And you have a very materialist definition of what comprises backwards - you disdain the kampung way of life, and you seem to think there are no drawbacks to modern life, not even a single element in any way. On the contrary, it is capitalism which encourages waste and inefficiency, just not as much as a command economy. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 03:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

open source code is not a functioning gift economy with living breathing people sustaining their existance upon it...not to mention its functioning in a capitalist system. The guy who created it, had a day job...
no competition is good. It is not wasteful, you have a backwards view. Competition ensures companies do what is best for society, best for the consumers. Without competition companies are free to exploit, provide bad service, poor products. Competition for consumers and thus profit drives companies to do their best...always do their best.
Capitalism does not waste resources, it provides as much of goods as society is willing to consume. Command economies produce too much or too little, most likely too little which results in shortages and your gift economy won't produce much of anything. And what is with this "hoarding goods" bs you keep mumbling about. capitalism does not encourage hoarding of goods, there is no reason why people will pay money to gather up a bunch of toasters!!! In your gift economy people will grab as much of whatever they can before its all gone...because its all FREE!!! What will happen, and I'm willing to bet on this, is that your system will always break down into a barter economy (it will likely be a black market barter economy)...shortly thereafter you're altruistic group will pretty much fall apart. I'm willing to bet my entire fortune on this.
There will be very little incentive to produce in your society. Your altruistic people, aka your only members, will be few in numbers, and not very productive. This doesnt even take into account they that they will have no idea what to produce, or how much to produce it etc etc etc. Your gift economy will be incredibly wasteful of all resources from raw material to human capital.
A barter system would be more effecient than your system. and a barter system is less effecient than a monetary system. Prices are the most effecient way of trading between multiple people. Barter is highly ineffecient and has high transaction costs...gift economies...utterly useless.
No group can be self sustaining, your group will be no exeption. You will resort to barter or money economy to trade with the outside world.
You won't believe me until you see your system fall flat on its face. Economically, philosophically, and by rational thought, it will not work save for people like you who think they are doing what is best and are willing to make extreme sacrifices.
You are butchering the Nash equiliberium and the Prisoner's delimma. The prisoner's delimma is about framing incentives to encourage behavior. With no reward punsihment system in place it is beneficial to cheat pre-arranged agreements (the reason why collusive arrangements such as your example of the rich buying up and controlling all the radio stations to eliminate opposition do not last is also based on a game very similar to the prisoner's delimma...essentially there is no incentive to remain in the collusive arrangement as the great profit incentive lies outside by breaking the aggreement.
Well, I'm off to fulfill some eudaimonia by play; as such I'll state some rebuttals shorter than usual. I'd still say you have no idea what the nature of a gift economy is, because it is not merely just all sacrifice, or just getting everything for free. It is free flow, but not in the sense of "take and never give back", or even "take a lot and give back little". As for hoarding goods, the concept is that by denying those who demand a product for a certain amount of time, and eventually controlling all sources of that product, hoarding can occur to extort prices indefinitely after that period. A gift economy does not expose its entire economy to a bunch of strangers, but rather a community. It's not "take all while it's there", because then that would cripple the source of the gifts that could hold out indefinitely if reciprocation was given (and that in fact this reciprocation is far more mutually beneficial that it will ever be in a free market). Competition doesn't ensure anything. Again, companies don't want to their best - they just want to get the most things for the least amount of effort. Competition is a system because the final state of it that of non-competition, it eventually culminates in a single monopoly sooner or later, always, which then degenerates into of course, decay.
You have no idea of what a gift economy entails. It's not giving blindly. It's not producing blindly. It's not receiving blindly either. "Free flow" simply means "as much as possible, with little hesitation", not "giving blindly to everyone who shows up"...why would people who wouldn't be part of the community be there to accept the gift anyway? They wouldn't want to be part of it. The social systems that accompany a gift economy provide incentive for the producers to satisfy the needs and the demands of the community as much as possible, in order to be seen as productive.
It is true, it cannot be independent, but external trade (and this is resolved differently) is a different matter in a gift economy than internal transactions, and this is why gift economies can scale. After all, gift supplies can be sold externally for trade, which can then be used for imports. To scale this, there might even be merchants who do such an effort for transport. Clearly here, the difference in a gift economy is that the merchant or the middleman is appreciated for his or her effort, but does not have the ability to extort prices. The Spanish Revolution did not fall fat on its face, although the Nazi regime funded Francisco Franco, and Stalin, the Soviet army - both enemies of true communism, which eventually conquered the Catalonians. But the Catalonian economy did not fall flat on its face - rather the opposite.
I had dropped more or less by chance into the only community of any size in Western Europe where political consciousness and disbelief in capitalism were more normal than their opposites. Up here in Aragon one was among tens of thousands of people, mainly though not entirely of working-class origin, all living at the same level and mingling on terms of equality. In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life--snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.--had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master. - George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia
As for pre-arranged agreements, again the re-iterated dilemma tends towards cooperation - as such between society, because society does not compose of merely between two players. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No under a competitive system it is nearly impossible for the culmination to be a monopoly. Almost all monopolies, true monopolies in history have arisen because they have been government made or government protected. Monopolies have a tendency to become ineffecient and overpriced. In a competitive free market system, if it degenerated into a monopoly for a good, an entrepenuer would see the overpriced goods, enter the market, and compete against that monopoly and gain ground VERY QUICKLY!!! Thus even if a monopoly is created it is not long sustained. Competition will force prices back down and dillute control of one company from that particular good or market.
Competiton between companies leads to better outcomes for consumers. Protectionism and economic limits lead to conflicts between states as one side always feels they were exploited...while under a free market society only the most moronic members of society will feel cheated (Socialists, leftists, communists) as all transactions engaged in a free market are non coersive and thus non exploitive.
Gift economies will not work because it flies in the face of proven rationality. It flies in the face of the science of economics and attempts to operate without supply and demand, without prices, without wages. It is not sustainable. It requires altruistic people to operate...or guns.
I will eventually get around to reading about this spanish revolution but I have no doubt that I will uncover that it quickly unraveled because the motivations and incentives to participate were not strong enough to sustain the system...altruism only works so long for so many people, only true believers such as yourself would stand and stick with it even in the face of utter failure (at which point I have no doubt you will put guns to your former comrades heads and become no better than Stalin...its happend once before it will happen again). I'm not convinced by the opion of one socialist fiction writer...especially given the absolute blindness of many socialists and communists of that day...many of whom praised Stalin and the Soviet Union...at any rate. Your system requires alturism or force. My system merely requires non coersive behavior and competition with a freely floating wage and price system not determined by one individual or any government. (Gibby 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
See, I notice your arguments are getting more and more assertive and unsupported. Tell me, why has Microsoft arisen then? It is not government-made or government-protected. However, it has dipped its octopus arm into every single area of life possible, making it hard to topple even if it does charge exhorbitant prices (like it does now). They use fear, uncertainty and doubt tactics in order to destroy or dismiss their more efficient competitors, because they can keep their customer base in the dark of their competitors. This is a classic example of how plutocracies can repress and become its own form of government. Yes, of course monopolies have a tendency to become inefficient and overpriced - that's my whole argument, but they are invulnerable due to their existing reputation! You are very mistaken if you think enterpreneurs can enter the market very quickly - because they will quickly face class-action lawsuits and a whole host of other things for trademark infringement. Even without those institutions, the monopoly can use its existing power to spread its advertising campaign against its opponent. You see, you assume everyone in a free market will play fair, and it will all work out. The irony is that it is you who are being idealistic. You cannot say competition will force prices back down - why would a customer choose some young upstart, without a brand, without a known trademark, over the massive giant that is the monopoly? The customers are also hearing all these bad things that the monopoly is saying about its competitors, and the competitor has little money in the first place to counter-claim. Thus, the monopoly can easily destroy its competitors, it's been shown over time. Even in the highly free-wheeling, free-dealing capitalist society of the 1900's during the time of Theodore Roosevelt, without any socialist welfare institutions, the most freest market possible, there existed large conglomerate trusts that charged exhorbitant prices and wiped out all its competition.
You have no evidence that competition will work this way. What is best for the customer is not always what the customer thinks is best for him or her; he or she can be easily overwhelmed by existing status quo, or forced into submission by the existing plutocracy. Your logical fallacies are amazing. You criticise gift economics without explaining how its mechanics will fail. You say it flies in the face of rationality but I have demonstrated how participation is very rational indeed. Supply and demand still exists - in the form of empathy, in the form of community, communication between members, in a gift economy, things are very decentralised so there is no form of abuse either. Do you tell me that without prices in your family, you could not tell what they want, or what they need, or what you need from them? And if you extend this family, would you continue to need prices among them? Even among huge Chinese clans of thousands, prices were not needed between them because they saw them as family members - only between clans over time that these were used. Prices are not needed to communicate need - in fact they are a very rude way to send information through an economy indeed. Just because there are no wages doesn't mean there's no incentive - the incentives have been replaced with a much better mechanism that accounts for all sorts of exceptions and situations a free market cannot! And here it is proven: the most generalised economic model that accounts for every single sort of transaction or need, or scenario possible, is the most successful one. That happens to be a gift economy.
Put guns to my fellow comrades? Dear KDRGibby: I'm a Christian communist; perhaps with Muslim and Buddhist cultural influences as it impacts my country, but as you see, you think one step ahead of me. For being like Stalin would violate my personal highest good, my eudaimonia. Power is a means, not an end, and to assume an authoritarian state would violate all of my personal principles. You see Gibby, philosophy actually matters. You realise that Orwell was a heavy critic of Stalin and the Soviet Union (or where else would he have pulled 1984 or Animal Farm out of?) ... but he wrote Homage to Catalonia because he knew what true socialist ideals entailed. Your free market will never be non-coercive - corporations have a free reign and there are no mechanisms to keeo the corporations in check. They will never play nice, of course - they seek to destroy their competitors, and to keep a tight hold on their customers. It is the nature of capitalism. Again, before you craft your rebuttal, do actually address the point and not use a circular argument like you have (it is quite ironic when you talk about logical consistency), because you have not proven nor elaborated why competition and the "best company" will always prevail. The 1900's in the United States were the times of capitalism - why did you think the United States shied away? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 17:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
III
my points get more assertive as your points get further and further from reality. I'm not going to convince a true believer. You'll only learn from failure...which your system will fail.
Microsoft created an innovative product...it is also not a monopoly. Populists tend to distort the definition of monopoly to mean "Sucessful Companies" Microsofts practices are not always kind...but it is by no means a monopoly.
If Microsoft is keeping consumers in the dark there is a simple remedy. It is called INFORMATION DISCLOSURE. The more information available in a capitalist society the better the system functions. This also includes free wages, no price controls, no tariffs or trade restrictions, no capital controls.
THe United States was not a free wheeling free dealing free market capitalist state, EVER. That is the bull of historical socialist revisionists trying to paint a nasty picture out of their intellectual counterparts. THere have been very few real monopolies and those were taken care of by a very good law called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. But, many of the proclaimed monopolies were in fact, not monopolies just very sucessful buisnesses. And there are people like you who are very fallacious in their reasoning and determine that such success is unfair. THis continues today. Heck in the Reagan hayday there was a man who made millions of dollars on junk bonds VERY QUICKLY...the "people" and the courts essentially determined that he was too sucessful, and being too sucessful he must have cheated. He was put in jail and fined millions of dollars. Many economists today recognize that this man did nothing wrong and was seriously harmed by populists revisionists who still to this day believe that if one person gains another must lose.
BUT AS I HAVE SAID. WEALTH IS UNLIMITED. TRANSACTIONS ARE VOLUNTARY. THUS, AS ONE MAN GAINS, SO DOES ANOTHER. Thus if one persons "boat rises faster than another" it is NOT UNFAIR. Unless you are a logically fallacious person, and there are plenty...I even had a professor who continued to argue that it was unfair despite all the assumptions listed above.
If you think this is the nature of capitalism you have another thing coming. Capitalism as it is now is more toward socialist capitalism it is more statism than anything. Its big government. It is not the free market capitalism with which you are arguing against.
I am also aware that Orwell was not a supporter of Stalin, I am however aware that many socialists in the 1920s and 1930s in America and the united states were....heck the AMerican communist party continued to support him well into the 1950s despite evidence of the atrocities. So no, I am not going to accept a fiction writers opinion of the subject. I do not have enough facts on what happend to provide you with a counter point. I am sure that there was a very large minority who was oppressed and exploited, as they did have their property stolen. I am also sure, based on other events, that productivity fell as enthusiasm fell, as people realized there wasnt much incentive to work. I will have to read an unbiased account of the events, something along historical lines not something from a socialist fiction writer who really didnt present much evidence to begin with.
Its interesting that you say I'm logically inconsistant...that is funny. You shouldnt say that just because you don't understand how competition works. You can pander to your socialist quick refrence guide but it wont help. I'll repeat again...this is how competition works in everyway in every aspect.
1. Competition between companies means consumers have multiple choices.
2. Companies must compete for that consumer.
3. Companies will work to be more effecient, innovate to create better products, have better customer service, provide greater incentives, and or provide lower prices.
Without competition.
1. Companies do not have to worry about attracting consumers
2. Since consumers always come, they have no incentive to be effecient, innovate, have good customer service, or lower prices.
3. The above continues to spiral up and out of control as prices and inneffeciency rise together.
Examples of Competition: Toyota Motors
Examples of No Competition: Hindustan Motors
Both were started in the same year, in seperate countries. One had been destroyed by war the other was pretty much left alone...and no India's per capita was not significantly lower than Japans. Hindustan Motors was protected from competition by the Indian government. It created only 1 vehicle, never innovated and only produced 5-15k cars a year at a premium price.
Meanwhile Toyota was beating American cars in quality by the early 1970s less than 30 years after it was created. It has built many different car lines, and has designed and innovated many new engines, transmissions, turbo setups, even built trucks and SUVs.
Competition between companies brings out the BEST results for consumers.
Another example
The United States prevented competition between Airlines from the 1930s to the late 1970s. The agency set up to maintain this non-competition (which by the way was argued that no competition ment more stable jobs, and lower prices as companies didnt have to "waste money" competing...the same fallacious arguement you give.) The agency spent more time making sure companies kept prices up than down. They even regulated the size of seats, space between seats, and THE SIZE OF SANDWHICHES!!!!!!! SO that no company could have a competitive advantage over another.
Once that agency was demolished and competition opened up, prices of air tickets plummeted DISPITE a huge spike in demmand for Air travel!!!!
Competition is paramount for effeciency, innovation, low prices, and ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE CONSUMER! Without competition in the market Companies, like governments, ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE!!!!!
There are THOUSANDS of examples, no MILLIONS OF EXAMPLES of how competition has benefited the consumer. They are all around you. Get your head out of those socialists books, ignore your parents, and think for yourself. Stop falling for the populist mantras which ignore reality, history, economics, in favor of fallaciously reasoned arguements of some intangeble goals.
The United States shied away from liberalism in fits and bouts ever since it was created. Tariffs were thrown up and taken down, wage laws passed and dismissed, income taxes raised and thrown out. But as time grew so did the power of central government. SO did the influence of socialists and populists.
They manipulated information, used bad reasoning, ignored facts. Made arguements like "There are more poor today than ever" when in fact the percentage of poor was swiftly decreasing.
Made bad judgements like "competition is bad for consumers because it wastes resources" and naturally powerful companies jumped in and supported it...because eliminating their competition through the government is a sure way to great PROFITS!
It was a mix of niave socialists and statist capitalists.
They blamed free markets for the great depression nevermind we never had a free market, let alone tariffs had risen drastically in the years prior to the great depression.
They blamed laisez faire government on the great depression despite the fact that Herbert Hoover created an alphabet of programs that later became known as the NEW DEAL under FDR.
Academics let non scientific factors cloud their judgement in trying to search for easy fixes to problems and in doing so made assumption errors that lead them to the incorrect conclusions you now support. The kind of thing that says "Free Trade is not working to lift 3rd world people out of poverty, there for free trade does not work" despite the fact that there has been no free trade. What doesnt work, in fact, is protectionism.
Some got the right idea, like Chompsky your hero, and said "Capitalism is now producing power hungry elites who are dominating society and harming the minority or the underprivilaged" but reasoned that the fault must be Capitalism itself not how capitalism was being implemented. It has been a bunch of really bad assumptions and really easy answers that most Americans will readily accept (Because they can't afford to take the time to spend hundreds of hours researching and waying both sides of the arguement to make a judgement for themselves, they remain largely uninformed but accept what they percieve to be the best possible answer.)
Therefore, the reason why Americans, like much of the rest of the world, accepted socialism over free market capitalism was not because free market capitalism is inherently a failure, but because socialists provided quick, easy, and aggreeable answers that apeal to the human since of fairness or unfairness...thus appealing to human emotion rather than human logic.
For many years free market microeconomists had been unable to fight against this trend. Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman were the first economists to really take a bite out of the socialists with well written books easy to understand for the average non economist. History has also played a roll as socialist countries flop one after the other, as their economies become more sluggish and less effective and as the cost of government soars higher and higher.
It is a matter of time before the information becomes too undeniable and the arguements of microecon free marketeers becomes clearer and easier to understand that the people will vote and maintain a free market capitalist system.
(Gibby 18:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC))
Your talk page
Because of your request I have unprotected but it can easily be protected again if you do something against policy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, but as I have tried to tell the offending administrator protects against ones user discussion page is only allowed for constant reverts or additions of hostile material or removing of sock puppet tags per current wiki rules. While it is frowned upon wiki users are free to delete anything else in their discussion page, it is not against the rules. (Gibby 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

Classical Liberalism
Wow, quite the trainwreck you've got going here. Still, thanks for grabbing the typos I missed on my NPOV/grammar sweep of the "classical liberalism in the US" section. Technogeek 18:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, don't thank me, I got lucky, I'm dyslexic afterall :P (Gibby 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
Distinguishing between usertalk content and articletalk content
Gibby- please keep posts on article space pages specific to issues that directly relate to the article at hand. Larger expositions & rebuttals about your positions about your beliefs belong on usertalk pages. If you're responding to someone on a level beyond the wiki article, put your response on the talk page of the user you're addressing. Feco 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Gibby
Like most REAL conservatives throughout English & Canadian history, my economics are situational, and not doctrinaire. Protectionist at times, Free-Trader at times, and the best description being situational. Historically speaking, liberals are doctrinaire, and conservatives are pragmatic on matters of economics and trade. Cordially ... TrulyTory 18:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A purely "free-market" only works when actors are small-to-medium and contained within a specific geography; as well, there needs to be a diffusion of sufficient investment capital, and fairly widespread access to resources. What you advocate has passed into memory: the Anglo-Saxon economies of the 19th century. The growth of the state as a necessary actor, the emergence of hemispheric and global trade regimes, and the evolution of the trans-national corporation has rendered laissez-faire economics obsolete. Nation States need to be flexible and choose sectoral free-trade where it makes sense, and maintain tariff walls where monopolistic, hostile, or foreign Corporations seek economic dominance and control over domestic life, and where political considerations of national development and wealth are paramount. Given your perspective, I will wager that you are under 35 years of age, and American. You need to see the world, friend. TrulyTory 18:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was correct then: Under 35 and American, eh ? The fact is you have not lived in another country to see that most nations' economies are now dominated by Trans-National Corporations. There is nothing intrinsically bad about this, but the TNs do not want, or encourage free-trade and competition. In fact, they seek dominance via Monopoly and Oligopoly. Look at the most recent infatuation American (and International) TNs have for merger and acquisition. Why do you think this is? Why do the Equity Markets so reward this behaviour? That is why so many Nations outside the USA seek some political control over them via Tariff Policies, Labour Regulations, Environmental Controls etc ... Corporation Capitalism is the enemy of market economics, and if you cannot see this, then you are blinkered by ideology, which is just a another secular religion. Your FAITH in things that have not been proven beyond doubt, makes you a market-economics fanatic. The truth in all these matters, is of course, constrained between the two extremes. When you grow-up, you will realise this. TrulyTory 21:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that your isolation in Wikiland has more to do with your constant reliance on indefensible POV, that it does with conspiracy don't you? TrulyTory 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
National Socialist? Please ... Now you are just annoying. Canada is 1/11th the size (population/consumers) of the USA. Without strong portfolio investment from outside the USA, we alone cannot raise enough capital to create Firms the size of yours in order to maximise our comparative advantages. US Economic hegemony is a result of two things and two things only: (1) a large domestic economy that has been used as a springboard into Foreign Markets, and (2) the resultant ability to dominate foreign markets in the aftermath of War and Conflict. The one supports the other, and allows them to find new underpenetrated markets for product - with the explicit support of the US Government (eg: Halliburton). But never fear, as more US TNs outsource in the name of "globalisation," you won't even have the benefit of self-interested TNs to support your Economy as they will eventually come to be reliant on OUS Markets for revenue growth, as is happening already. TrulyTory 21:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By-the-way, I was once a Free-Market Radical too. Then I saw how it really works out here. I have worked for two Fortune 100 Companies in the last 15 years. I see how they go to Market TrulyTory 21:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I have been advising KDRGibby all along. However, "pragmatic economics" is decent but leaves much in yearning, but better than being blind to problems, I suppose. The issue is that it requires policies to be made that correct problems only after they have been significant, ie. and requires explicit intervention; it's a sort of compromise between economic models. It's sort of like the current compromise between the quantum mechanical and relativistic camps: we use one or the either based on the situation (ie. macro versus micro), but having split theories isn't really satisfactory, so while again while it's decent it leaves much to yearn for. But it is of course better than totally ignoring the problems of a pure market system. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Corporate investment overseas is not a problem per se; what is the problem is that American TN dominance is not really based on innovation and excellent business skill - it has been based on having the opportunity to maximise market-share in nations that are under- capitalised or under-developed due to the ravages of war. The US economy feasted on Europe after WWII. It is feasting on the pool of cheap labour in Asia now. Much of this opportunity has been provided by either the US Government or Foreign Governments seeking a fast-route to development. In the case of China today, US TNs are being used for their hunger for lower labour costs, while at the same time China is stealing their production methods and technology. Globalisation means the end of American TN hegemony; and the problem for some of us, is that we know what replaces them will be much worse. As I suspected, you are an undergraduate student. When you grow-up some more, you will learn how the real world works. National Governments have the responsibility to make sure that economic change is managed as best as can be - for the common good. That is part of the reason why we have Government in the first place. TrulyTory 13:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I will deal with you when I have time. Despite your juvenile crack about the "mail room," I will respond when I have time to respond. Some of us have responsible Management positions in the private sector and do not stare at a flat-screen in a dorm room all afternoon. TrulyTory 22:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
censorship? right...
I don't know why you think that there is a cabal of administrators of users who are trying to prevent the world from learning about key historical events. Often the key issue is the interpretation of history and theories of whether communism is still a valid ideology presently, not historical facts! Most of the time, their interpretation, not the actual event itself, is the part that is disputed. Saying that we hope that "people don't figure out things for themselves" is pretty stupid, considering that omission of information is a poorer kind of censorship than actual disinformation, since there's sources about it everywhere. It obviously shows you are concerned about Wikipedia's use as a source.
Furthermore, please stop complaining about "tattle-taling". It's called community effort. Yes, meatpuppetry should be generally avoided, nor should there be spamming of votes; but this is not a vote effort at all! It's perfectly acceptable to ask someone to revert for you if one thinks that person is the exceptional troublemaker. It's hardly bullying in any sort. Furthermore, reverting for the wrong reasons is still a bad thing; people didn't revert for me because they were my friend, but rather because they were another Wikipedian.
It's a perfect democratic right to be able to complain about someone, by the way. "Tattle-taling" isn't an argument normally employed by liberals. Just a thought. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but your deletion of material, ignoring of discussion, while demanding arbitrations, then later stating you tried to compromise is total bull. You couldnt figure out a way to keep certain material out so your trying to abuse the system to get it done. (Gibby 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC))
No, I am bored by you and your pedantic and fundamentalist liberalism which you seem to think - contary to all evidence otherwise - is universal and immutable. I am not the only one. The ring is closing friend. You best get things in order. TrulyTory 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BS Once Again.........and you expect me to participate in your "mediation" circus with crap like this?
Crotalus horridus violated the 3rr rule with 5 reverts on the Debates over Wal-Mart page, any admin worth their salt, aka does their job, go block him
Che Guevara in popular culture
I never said there needed to be such a section, I suggested that the point might be notable in that context, but on reviewing the article I saw that there was already a section where the point could be incorporated - so I incorporated it. The article doesn't neeed to have a list of links to companies that stock CG merchandise. As for your other comments, I don't have time to educate you about communism, or engage you in conversations about matters unrelated to the substance of articles. Mattley ^(Chattley) 19:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
, but they hardly constitute serious criticism. Should we link to every company that uses his image on a t-shirt? No.
No, your right, thats why I included just a few. Why dont you say what you mean next time and just say you dont want a certain section instead of giving me the bully run around where you make demands then delete it once demands are met on other grounds.
This is the logically inconsistant stupidity that I've been complaining about and getting in trouble because. If admins actually took the time to read what really went on they wouldnt be so eager to block me 9 times out of 10.
Note to Admins
Users may delete and revert anything they wish in their own user page so long as it is not a sockpuppet tag or the replacing of personal attacks. Admins are also not allowed to lock user discussion pages unless the user reverts to remove sockpuppet tags or replaces personal attacks. Other editors (beyond the user and including admins) who revert more than 3 times on a user page are subject to temporary blocks. All of this follows the wiki rules (not like any of you actually understand them...but this is just a friendly reminder).
Note to Editors
The vast majority if admins won't do their job if they don't like you or if another user complained about you. I have never seen an admin actually do a fair or consistant job. I've seen at least 2 editors get away with revert rules while another user was blocked on the same page. One of the editors is confirmed to have gotten away with the revert rule twice already. It must be nice to have friends as admins so you can abuse the rules together. Wiki admins are worthless.
Communists and Socialists are Stupid People...End of Story
I've spent alot of time being frustrated trying to make edits while being an inclusionist...just trying to make sure that the "other" side of the story is being told. It has not mattered whether I cited anything, communist and socialist editors just remove all opposition. When asked to provide their own citations they continually ignore the request. When you remove their original research they put it back, and when all else fails there has been no shortage of communists and socialists on wiki to help them out.
At first I was very very frustrated by their stupidity and lack of logical consistancy but I just realized that I should expect very little from these people. They afterall deny the function of the wage and price system, deny the existance of supply and demand, and believe that people will actually work according to their ability and take according to their needs...some have been known to believe that candy canes rain from the sky and that rivers are really made of chocolate. They have child like brains, sophmoric analytical ability, and a wild immagination.
I should not be surprised when they delete all opposition, make unreasonable demands on you, ignore your own requests that they cite material, or even delete things on the very standards their own sections would fail to meet. Turns out there are alot of stupid people in the world...and most of them are editors and admins on Wiki.
FACT Wages represent out skill, knowledge, productivity, and our time

FACT Money earned in wages is used to purchase goods making the transaction of trade more efficient than barter as money represents your skill, knowledge, productivity, time, service, and or other goods you may own.

FACT The money system made barter obsolete 2,500 years ago, it is by fact, more efficient than barter as money is used in substitute of trading goods or services with another for their goods and services.

FACT Communism replaces both the money and barter system with a fabled system of sharing. With no wages, property, or money, the value of items is unknown, the demand for items are unknown, and the incentive to produce them are not present. Therefore everyone will take as much as they can while producing little to nothing of their own.

FACT Prices carry valuable information such as the demand for a good, which signals how much to produce, of what quality to produce, what material to make the good out of, what color or size.

FACT Profit merely represents the happiness gained from the consumption of goods as well as providing an incentive to produce the product. The more profit that is earned the more valued that product is to society.

FACT High profits re-direct resources (thanks to the price system) to create more of this highly desired good. What results is more competition, more products, a happier society, and eventually reduced costs.

FACT Competition in a free market capitalist system provides incentives to become more efficient, create better products, and lower prices.
FACT Communism provides no incentive to work, to produce, to innovate, to be efficient, and provides no disincentive toward hoarding materials and goods.
FACT Communism is more backward than the inefficient barter system that was made obsolete 2,500 years ago. Communists are not progressive they are regressive...so regressive you could accurately call them Neanderthals.
FACT COMMUNISM WILL NOT WORK.
Other economic alternatives that WILL NOT WORK...
Participatory Economics - Communism meets pirate booty in dividing shares among laborers
Gift Economy - not surprisingly, more ineffecient than the barter economy.
Stupidity
On the Debates of Wal-Mart page certain editors are demanding citations on the following statement (even though citations are now present):
"Wal-Mart operates in a capitalist economic system which allows free enterprise [38] Wal-Mart is currently free and legally allowed, in all states in which it operates, to discriminate in carrying and selling products it's shareholders and headquarters do not like. Subsequently consumers are free to shop at any competitor of Wal-Mart for any product not carried by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has no objective to "force" consumers to accept any percieved moral values of Wal-Mart or its shareholders. Again, consumers are free to shop where they want and purchase what they want, no one is forced into a transaction by Wal-Mart or forced to accept any percieved moral values. According to free market scholars such as Milton Friedman, transactions, such as those that operate between Wal*Mart and consumers, are voluntary, and because a transaction is voluntary no party to such a compact is exploited or coerced."
This addition addresses a previous complaint that Wal-Mart refuses to carry certain products and as a result is attempting to force its moral values upon consumers. This criticism of Wal-Mart is stupid enough, but a counter arguement is nevertheless necessary to keep Wiki from being pov on the subject.
To state that Wal-Mart is allowed to carry and sell what it wishes and that consumers are free to shop where they want and buy what they want is a fact, its a disturbingly obvious fact that shouldnt require citation...but because there are people so incredibly stupid as to say Wal-Mart forces them to shop there or forces their moral opinions upon them, this counterstatement of the obvious is necessary.
I'm not sure whether this stupidity extends to the editors in question or if their stubborness is merely the result of their hatred of Wal-Mart and all facts showing Wal-Mart in a positive light or their own arguements as rediculous piles of garbage. For their own benefit I'll believe the latter...but the latter is still not suffecient to delete obvious and self explanatory material. Let the readers decide for themselves which statement is true given the appropriate facts (which they keep deleting). (Gibby 18:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

FACT: Wal-Mart is allowed to carry and sell whatever it wants

FACT: Consumers are allowed to shop anywhere they wish

FACT: Consumers do not have to purchase anything when they shop

FACT: Transactions between consumers and a store are voluntary

FACT: Voluntary transaction implies that no party is made worse off by the transaction.

FACT: Having no party made worse off by the transaction no party has been exploited by the transaction.

FACT: Having been voluntary, and non exploitive, this implies that no coersion happend...No coersion means no one is forced.

FACT: No consumer of Wal-Mart products, or shoppers at Wal-Mart stores are forced to buy anything.

FACT: No consumer of Wal-Mart products, or shoppers at Wal-Mart are forced to accept any percieved moral values of Wal-Mart.

FACT: Complaints that believe Wal-Mart exploits consumers, forces them to shop at Wal-Mart, and forces them to accept moral values are idiotic, baseless, and grounded in fantasy rather than reality.

As an inclusionist I allow even moronic complaints to be registered so long as counterarguements are sustained. If counterarguements are not allowed then the moronic complaints must go. If the editors in question continue to delete the factual statements I will delete their moronic complaints per their own logic (not suffecient citation or some other bogus complaints they use).
"*FACT: Voluntary transaction implies that no party is made worse off by the transaction."
A misconception. Hoarders of goods can force a transaction to occur where it's choosing the lesser of two evils. Calling the counterarguments "moronic" may indeed be your view, but the article can't be bloated, why don't you use http://pov.wikicities.com instead? Rather, it merely attempts to address both sides. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FACT, you dont understand what was said. NO PARTY ENGAGING IN A VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION IS MADE WORSE OFF. Words have meanings UNDERSTAND THEM!!!! BTW
Hoarding becomes a real big problem with heavy government intervention, and even worse under fantasies like communism (Gibby 07:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

Furtherfact, your statement is fallacious reasoning. You are 1. Conflating involuntary circumstances with voluntary transaction 2. even someone who hoards goods can engage in voluntary transactions where consumers of his goods are not made worse off.
Neither is a party who engages in a transaction necessarily made better off. Consider it a premise such as in the movie saw, except with economics. You can choose to have your leg sawn off or to lose your life. Well in this case, people can choose to be outside on the streets, go hungry and die or choose to pay rent they eventually can't afford, or at the best, keep themselves at the same level as before. And ultimately it is worse because they age, and they have ultimately progressed nowhere. You're such an idealist, Gibby, assuming that transactions never occur out of coercion due to the environment. Words have meanings? I think you're just playing with semantics. If I'm about to be evicted, I can choose to pay some exhorbitant rent (universal everywhere else in the city) or to go out on the streets. That's still voluntary because I did not do it at gunpoint. But it's still rather a form of combined coercion, because the capitalist property owners have effectively hoarded all the property and can keep the populace at subsistence. It isn't just *one* country, it's the entire world - the world economy, not merely the economy of one state is poor because of capitalism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not a voluntary transaction. You are conflating issues. Every time I bring up this point you socialists and communists have the same comebacks. Conflating coersive action with voluntary transaction. You are making logical failures here.
As far as rent is concerned you voluntarily entered into a countract to borrow someones property for a certain period of time. This means you valued living in this apartment at X amount of dollars (which btw represent the happiness or utility you get from that product or service). If you are on a tight budget...By not making payments you have rationally chosen to recieve utility and happiness from some other product or service, meaning you value something more than living in that apartment.
You have violated your contract, and as you previously agreed, you will be evicted (you knew the rules when you signed the contract!)
Again, you are conflating issues and building straw men.
If your problem is with property being hoarded (Which there is no evidence of this at all), but there is a great deal of evidence in demonstrating difficulty for the poor in aquiring property, then I suggest you take up your arguement against big government interference and regulation not capitalism.
Government interference and regulation puts highly regressive costs upon owning property which means the costs hurt the poor more than the rich. By reducing government regulation on property you can in effect reduce costs of ownership for the poor. Limited free market capitalist socieities can turn all members, including the poor, into capitalists.
I suggest you read Hernando De Soto's the Mystery of Capital.
Your fight is not with capitalism. It is with big government. (Gibby 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
Government intervention and regulation may or may not put a high cost on acquiring property, however without government intervention, a high cost on acquiring property would still exist. Capitalism is the use of existing capital and property in order to continue producing wealth from existing wealth, ie. one of investment. Those without initial wealth generally have way less capacity to create wealth of their own. This applies to education. In a pure capitalist society, public education would not exist, or even still, be of very poor quality. Furthermore, those in poverty would not be in a good social situation to exactly become intellectuals, because the focus is on subsistence, whereas the rich can acquire computers, tutors and what have you in order to teach their children. Educational streaming then streams the worse children off to the vocational lines, ie. one of low income, while the better students get streamed to the better classes. Education is the biggest example of a resource, a kind of existing wealth which is not available (or not well enough available) to much of the poor. It's a natural tendency of capitalist society for those with the most existing wealth to acquire as much existing property as possible, such that the rest of the massses are continually at their mercy because they control the means of wealth creation. This is why the entire issue of means of production ocurs. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the book I suggested, De Soto lays out the costs for aquiring property in 3 different countries and explains how regulations make aquiring property so costly that the poor dont do it. HE also discusses why property is so important to wealth development and wealth creation.
You also have a very reductionist view of capitalism. You dont need to start with capital to become wealthy. In the United States the vast majority of millionaires are what is called NEW WEALTH. They or their immediate parents built the wealth. Look at the Sam Walton, the man had one store just 40 years ago, now his children are worth billions. Look at Bill Gates, 25 years ago he was a college drop out. Dell and Gateway were started by men working out of their homes now are million dollar companies...Apple Computer, same story.
What prevents wealth creation for the poor are perverse incentive structures that make it more rational for them to not save and invest (such as America's current tax code), complicated property laws (in some countries it takes more than 10 years to legally aquire property...thats alot of paper work, fees, and trips to the capitol to see gov bueracrats), and even some perverse incentives from wellfare which "reward" people for not working as much as they can, or up until 1994 in the United States, we paid women to not marry, to not have a man in the house, to not work, and to have children but only if she did all that. What resulted was alot of poor unmarried, unworking women who kept making babies. THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE MADE IT RATIONAL TO DO BECAUSE THE GOV PAID HER TO DO IT!!!! These are not steps to alleviating poverty these are steps at sustaining or increasing poverty.
Please read the book I suggested and keep an open mind. (Gibby 20:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
Is it a free book (GFDL, creative commons, etc.), because I will not bother to read it if the material is not free. I'm a free information proponent and all that. Besides, I don't think it will address my objections. One doesn't need to start with existing money to become wealthy, but there are other forms of wealth....education. He dropped out of college so he could have time to make his fortune (not that he was stupid). Here, there is little government regulation and welfare in the form of handouts (its more of discounts to the poor for healthcare, etc. and everything is cheap here anyway so no one starves)...education remains one of the key problems with education, especially if combined with academic streaming. All the rich can afford to get tutors, special software or other educational incentives (such as, the parents being educated in themselves), while the poor remain uneducated, and poor, thus uneducated...something which I have not seen an ability for capitalism to resolve without the use of government intervention. Even public schooling and making it compulsory for children to attend school (or some form of education) is not enough, because the poor can't teach their children as well as the rich, unless one is in a communist society. This (education) is the wealth needed to create new wealth. Government intervention is basically intervention - it can be good, or bad. It also tends to be macroeconomic, so it only works for very specific situations, so there are a lot of problems with it which I may agree...but not agree that it's the problem with capitalism. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boy no wonder why you believe in communism you've shut yourself off to loads of information and isolated your intellectual development. At anyrate, try a public library, otherwise pay to purchase it, its not expensive and you can order it from Ebay or Amazon. (Gibby 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC))
I borrow books all the time, I'm not sure if my (authoritarian government) library has it. It's not that I don't buy books, I just am not willing to shell out sixty dollars for a diatribe that may not address my concerns. Information should be free; if I have to pay for it in order to receive an opposition view then I am less then thrilled to read about it. I *don't* have a credit card so it's not like I can order it online. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 22:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns seem to be blind faith in a fantasy economic arrangment not concern for the poor and disadvantaged. Buy the book, check it out at the library, De Soto makes a very compelling arguement for how property rights and property reform can be made to benefit socities most disadvantaged people.
Even if you disagree you should, at the very least, be concerned with your intellectual competitors own beliefs. You have so far failed in that endevor as you show little understanding for their theories. Please check out that book and stop being closed minded about it.
If your library does not carry it, your dad can order it, unless he's a communist like you :P
(Gibby 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
Why don't you outline his argument here? I'm interested with intellectual competitors' beliefs, but only if they are willing to speak freely, not debate for money. I pay to read works that have a plot, ie. Animal Farm, 1984, Homage to Catalonia, even Ayn Rand, but not essays, which are something else. I don't pay to read essays. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 04:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then likely, you are not reading very good material. Selling products is an incentive to provide good quality work, less no one will purchase your material again.
One reason why wikipedia is full of misinformation and a great deal of crap. And btw De Soto's book does have a "plot" its to educate you on variables you've missed in your intellectual examination of the world around you. Very importan variables, I might add, that you missed and subsequently went the wrong direction on your journey.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465016146/102-3461848-5364920?v=glance&n=283155 $12 US, used on Amazon...surely even your communist family can afford something like this.
Dont give anymore of that "I dont pay for anything" crap. If you want to get ahead in life sometimes you must pay, it represents your willingness to gain. I'm considered one of America's poorest people, yet in my educational journey I have purchased many books, several thousand dollars worth. Some I've kept some I've sold, I have two bookshelfs full and am in need of a third...heck I even have 5 books laying on my floor from the local library on top of what I've purchased on my meager $7 an hour wage.
Do yourself a favor and get that book.
(Gibby 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
I've no idea if it's available in Singapore. I'm busy. AND it's not that I'm not willing to pay for a good book, I have no idea if it's good as you say. Besides, ideally, I should not have to pay for information: information is not a limited resource, and hence extremely workable in a gift economy. It's why we have WikiBooks you know. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hernando De Soto is regarded as one of the most creative capitalist thinkers and regarded as somewhat of a hero to poor South American people looking for a way out of poverty. Read the reviews yourself, but in my opinion its brilliant (though for academic sake a bit dry in the middle as he hammers you with evidence over and over on how heavy government interference in property law and property rights keeps poor people poor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs)
Well, tell me how he proves that most of the responsibility due to the poverty cycle so far is due to government intervention. As I see it, government intervention can lead to a poverty cycle and that is plausible, or not help it at all, or aggravate one, but I have not seen how it is responsible for most of the poverty cycles present. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the book and find out...but its very basic. Without access to property many poor people are unable to build and develop their buisnesses, expand clientel, and reach a broader market. The regulations are so costly that they are unable to develop and must operate extralegally so they are never really able to generate more wealth than what sustains their meager existance. Property rights are essential to wealth creation. Equal property rights are essential to eliminating poverty. (Gibby 05:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
You have already said that. That proves why government regulation leads to a perpetuation of the poverty cycle. However, how does prove that 1) most government regulation perpetuates poverty, and that 2) most perpetuation of poverty is due to the poverty cycle? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just being stuborn and not wanting to engage in real debate. You continue to show all the characteristics of a true believer under the faith of the unrpovable with the denial of all rational thought and logical discourse.
1. yes, and 2. I wont use poverty cycle because you constructed a definition that favours your own policy prefrence as its own solution, thus in a way it becomes tautological to argue. (Gibby 08:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
A poverty cycle is a vicious cycle. I haven't constructed a definition that favoured my own policy preference. The definition is the "poor remaining poor" - the causes are of course, debatable. Anyway, I'll help write the encyclopedia, you can keep assuming bad faith about people. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
poverty cycle
You must be using some socialist communist word for "poverty cycle" which by definition attempts to include capitalist systems.
Other than that you are not paying attention.
If government regulations are costly, in both time and money, how can a poor person own property? If they sit on property, have a house on property, but are unable to show they own the property they can not develop the property, take loans against the value of the property, develop their buisness lest the atract attention from athorities.
The rich can always afford any cost the government throws against them. Having to fill out 300 different forms and make 50 trips to a gov agency and pay several $$$ in fees is no big deal compared to the hurdle the poor must face.
Further than this, though not covered in the book, taxing property, taxing savings, taxing income, taxing investment and income earned from investment all provide disencentives toward savings. Providing welfare with benefits caped at a certain income level encourages people to earn less than they otherwise could...all of this contributes to the poor sustaining their poverty rather than providing a framework where the incentives for wealth creation are greater and result in the reduction and eventual elimination of poverty. (Gibby 05:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
This still does not prove how most poverty cycles are due to regulation. There have been many other causes proposed by the theorists dealing with the poverty cycle, namely education, and the incentive for landlords against giving the masses existing property or wealth to hence increase their means of production. People have the ability to create wealth all they want, but they have to spend it all the next part because of their subsistence needs. You have just proven how specific kinds of regulation perpetuate poverty, not how all regulation perpetuates poverty, or how most perpetuation of poverty is again, due to regulation. It's like saying "most car crashes are due to drunk drivers", and citing all these examples of drunk driving, but not giving a reason why most crashes are due to drunk drivers. Besides, welfare in Singapore takes the form of rewarding the poor if their children get good grades (top 10% of the nation) but not if they get top 10% and aren't poor. As an example. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Logical fallacy alert.
1. you assume that poverty is sustained in large measure through unequal education. There is no remedy for unequal education it will always be there. What can be solved is equal access to educational opportunities. For example removing laws that restrict people from getting an education.
2. You also assume that all property owners refuse to always give up their property. Many times they do not have the capital to develop all their own land themselves, so they sell. Many a time, especially in the United States, people buy property, fix it up and sell it for profit. Property is always for sale here and we are one of the largest capitalist nations on the planet.
3. If government regulations create an incentive structure that makes it difficult to generate more wealth then yes government regulation is a big part of the problem.
4. In some cases, some people are just destined to remain poor as little to nothing can or will incentivize them to generate wealth even if living in a free market system.
You are grasping at strawmen in a vain attempt to blame capitalism for every fault of society. JUST READ THE BOOK!!!

as I thought, you are using a defintion, cycle of poverty, that is already framed in such a way, (without regards to facts) to favor your economic prefrence. Again, you are engaging in economic fallacies by building straw men.
There is a remedy for unequal education, through again free schools (not merely public schools) and a gift economy. Capitalism inhibits equal education, and places a price on information, from books, to tutors, and what have you. Of course property owners do not always refuse to give up their property, but as the nation becomes more dense (India) or especially in large cities, this does not happen.
Government regulation can be a big part of the problem but I do not see how other forms of government regulation can work other way. (For example, weapons are a problem in violent crimes. They are also tools the police use. Go figure.)
You're citing destiny now? Now that's desperate.
I realise that socialist principles and erosion of property rights may perpetuate a poverty cycle, especially if the principles are macroeconomic and incomplete. However, a culture of private property also perpetuates a poverty cycle. Having telomeres leads to death. Not having them also leads to death. One however, is more resolvable than the other (attacking the cause of cancer rather than avoiding cell proliferation completely). Incentive can be resolved; continuing injustice is unresolvable. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

free schools have done a poor job in educating people, I suppose you would also argue against private schools which, in the U.S. actually cost less per pupil than the public school, while also providing a better education on the grounds that "only the rich can afford a private education" which in America is also not true. Again prices are not bad...you engage in so many economic fallacies at so many levels and I'm not surprised...you won't pay to get yourself educated.
And no I dont know what this citing destiny is. I just know that there are a few people who will not work no matter the incentive structure, thats just fact. I believe however, that our current incentive structure is arranged in such a way as to promote as little wealth creation from our poor than they otherwise would under a limited free market government.
Your cure to poverty is actually worse than the disease. You would cut off the head, cut out the heart, and eat the brain, of what provides our society with every progressive incentive. Your economic prefrence has only the capability of making everyone equally worse off. (Gibby 06:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
I don't think you actually clicked on the link. "A Free School is neither a public school, nor a private school." from free schools. A public school is not free. For example, the rich still do better in a public school than the poor in public one, because the rich can get other education facilities, they can afford more tutors happens all the time in my country (here, if parents don't hire a tutor, and pay their exhorbitant fees, because it's so competitive, their child will often lose out due to streaming, and there will be 4-5 different ones). I'm not referring to the few people. I'm talking about the masses in poverty, in the world economy. Please stop being so US-centric. I do not see how the solution cuts off the incentive, it's based on eudaimonia, and based on a principle that occurs out of friendship and filial piety. Are you again, making an argument against friendship? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even the poor in private schools do better. I even paid for my own tutors. Its all a matter of how bad you want something. Free schools are not a sollution unless your solution is to make everyone equally worse off. You need to realize that everything has a cost...it just so happens that private schools in the United States are less expensive than public schools.
Please stop being so altrusitic and stuborn. NOT EVERYONE WILL BE FRIENDS WITH EVERYONE ELSE. People do things because they want something, something that another person may not have. Money merely represents that something. For example a teacher may want a Corvette, and the student wants an education but has no corvette. The student exchanges $$ for an education and the teacher converts the $$ into a Corvette, both parties are happy.
$$$ has a purpose, it is a very valuble tool for providing very valuble informaiton.
Here is a FREE book on economics that you can read to discover yourself the correct frame work for approaching economics. Please read it before posting again on this page.
http://www.ou.edu/class/econ3003/area1b.htm
You haven't actually read the free schools link - in contrast I have skimmed through yours and it doesn't say anything new that I already know. Everything has a cost, but not everyone wants that cost to be compensated for quid pro quo. Not everyone will be friends with everyone else, but you are friends with a select variety of people, and have a gift economy among them. You ask them for favours, and they grant it, and you do favours for them (I hope) - there, a limited gift economy. It's not technically trade, because it's done out of goodwill. One isn't expecting compensation. You don't perceive yourself as "losing" anything when you do it, in contrast to market economy philosophy, which profit is seen as revenue minus cost. I don't agree with it. In the end, I'm just a Christian, and I don't share that philosophy. You do. I guess that's the end of it. Perhaps it's not just communist stupidity, but Christian stupidity, eh? But I guess I'll stick with altruism. Yes, I'm very much willing to make an experiment - that's why I'm dedicated towards creating a commune. That corvette example applies in very narrow situations - the teacher values imparting values to students, the next generation more than they want money. Many teachers I know are dedicated to teaching, and aren't in it for money. Perhaps that's just Western culture. Cheers. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People value their job because they are paid to do it. People value doing things for free for intangible benefits, but few people recognize those benefits. I've volunteered my time at historical sites providing tours to guests because it was enjoyable to me, but I would not expect anyone else to do the same. Your system requires everyone to be altruisitc and value intangible benefits to operate. This is an impossible condition to meet upon a large society without using coersion.
And yes, teachers are all in it for the money. Ask them if they'd do it for no pay at all, with no income or wealth at all. They won't do it.
Now please go read that free book(Gibby 08:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC))
A lot of teachers won't do things for free in a market economy because they need an income to do other things in life like eat, have a roof and other things. In a gift economy they might be glad to teach freely because they freely receive things in return. Then again, some doctors set up free-clinics. It's currently the present culture of a large society not do it, but it's not impossible. Christianity calls upon all Christians to be altruistic, and unless a majority of them are hypocrites, then it is possible. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gift economy
Please add a more plausible section than "criticism". I will be writing on the talk page. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gift economics is invoked every time you do something out of friendship rather than money. It's invoked everytime you do something for your parents, or for your children, other than money. Gift economics is a term where social scientists attempt to explain why people do these things other than for money. Unless you're against filial piety and think there are people who actually criticise these institutions, then there cannot be possibly be "criticisms against a gift economy". There can be criticisms against a pure implementation of a gift economy, which is different. Eudaimonia is the incentive to do anything, including work, not merely transactions. Yes, you can be better off making that transaction, but you really could have made someone else more happy. Which would make you happy. That's an altruistic economy, and that's just one of the many reasons gift economical principles are invoked. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 06:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the economic system you wish to have in place for your society you will have some very strong criticism...everything I threw at you and more (which by the way you have shown an inability to counter).

You are a hardliner truebliever with blind faith...you wont read books that contradict and challenge these beliefs, and you are highly closed minded. There is no chance of convincing someone who substitutes logic, reason, and rationality with blind faith. You believe that everyone will accept an economic system that only works through coersion and altrusitic beliefs...but these are not suffecient to sustain a working economic system...even the Soviets with all their guns collapsed because they could not coerce everyone forever.
I have the ability to counter it, just that throwing a counter-rebuttal back was inappropriate for that talk page because I have not seen a prominent writer criticise gift economics yet, although people have criticised anarchist communism for other reasons. Again, there is no "criticism of gift economics", there is opposition towards a pure implementation of a gift economy that replaces everything else. I will read stuff that contradict and challenge my beliefs, and books too, if it's free. I've seen plenty of books that are free. I can read Orwell for free, online. I'm a student, I do not have to pay for partisan pieces of literature. I pay for my textbooks, I pay for books by Richard Feynmann, and calculus. I don't pay to read essays. Secondly, a gift economy is voluntary: there is nothing coercive about it. Here you are, generalising the opponents argument again. The insertion of that criticism section represented a generalisation of an altruistic economy and not one that specifically addressed it, and as such was awkward sounding and was irrelevant. One cannot say it has no incentives to produce because there are plenty of incentives to benefit a neighbour that benefits you; however, it's the economy of scale that's the issue. You keep adding your own personal objections to articles and adding original research. Again, you can't compare the Soviets to the communist anarchists - I hope you realise they fought each other. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gift economy ideas are nothing new, its just a new name for marxism. These arrangements have been heavily criticized and these arrangements are not considered valid or serious by 99.99% of all economists.
Incentives are provided in 2 ways and only 2 ways. Between altruistic members and each other, or altruistic members with guns and other people.
NO BODY WORKS FOR FREE!!!!!!!! NO BODY DOES IT BECAUSE ITS GOOD FOR THEIR HEALTH. Everyone works because they want something. $$$ represents that something while also being the most effecient mode of trading goods and services between individuals who may not have goods or services that the other wants...but they have the $$$ which represents that making the transaction highly effecient.
Removing all of this eliminates the incentives and removes all the effeciency of trade making it very difficult if not impossible.
Your system will break down into barter almost immediatly while no one produces much of anything and takes as much as they can. Thats how the rational choice cookies crumble.
If we could make a bet, and set up 2 cities each with our own economic prefrences I could once and for all bury your beliefs with hard factual visual human tested evidence that your system will not work.
No, gift economics is a new term for a concept that has existed before Marxism, a quantification of a phenomena that cannot be explained through market economics alone. Altruism is a virtue, and perhaps can only work between altruistic members of society, but then in that it's a behavioural trait, not a personality trait, ie. like kindness, something to be encouraged in all people. Every action and every inquiry is done in order to achieve eudaimonia, see Nicomachean Ethics. What this eudaimonia entails may vary, but money is a means, not an end. If the gain of money contravenes the end intended, then it stops becoming an incentive. Removing money makes trade difficult, but then not everyone sees things as trade. Economies do not necessarily operate on trade. Market economies do, but for example, Linux does not. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it is an unquantifiable system. Altruisim is only a virtue for some, whose to say your morals are right anyway? Your system does not even allow for diversity economic morality or diverse ineterests to be met.
Your system doesnt even have a mechanism for kindness to be promoted! Profits however are a very strong incentive to be kind...but they also incentivize companies to innovate, become more effecient, while also making them satisfy as many people as possible!
To follow this eudaimonia as you call it, requires serious economic fallacies. Please read that free book I gave you a link to. And did you learn this from your parents? That might help explain some of your true believer characteristics.
I'm not imposing my morals on others. I am encouraging and advocating others to take up my stance, as per my freedom of speech in a democratic society, mon camarade. You keep assuming work and production is an obligation, a chore that must be done, rather than perhaps a form of play that occurs. Have you seen the writings of Bob Black? He's a general critic of some of the recent holy cows of the leftist/anarchist trends, much of which is justifiable. That's not a book, that's an instruction manual. It contains nothing insightful (skimming over it).
Perhaps you think it's abstract or unworkable, or something that cannot work for most of society, which is true, not now, but much later. Perhaps you don't think everyone deserves to be educated or whatever, but that's only because of the way they were brought up, the culture they were brought up in, that is responsible for the mechanisms they respond to. Under a capitalist society, trademarks, patents and copyrights must be provided to compensate the person who created the intellectual property because of the sheer rigidity of the market economy, and that information doesn't have a chance to proliferate immediately. I think I will follow a philosopher that has been respected through the ages, one that taught Alexander the Great over some person who wishes to contest the right of education for all. (If you have to work in order to get for your education, one will never get it in a poor country; you have to choose between food and studies, unless you take a pretty extensive loan, which is quite repressive in itself for a child.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit in other articles
Why don't you edit in other articles other than politics? Music, science, literature...all of these would be nice, you know. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking Help
I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me, including wikistalking, because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just launched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct.[39] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks!--Mr j galt 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
#Wikipedia
I'm exhausted so I've been rather harsh and insensitive to you so I think we need a live talk. Why don't you join the Wikipedia community at the #Wikipedia IRC channel at freenode.net and see if some compromises can be made? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Economy of the Iroquois
Regarding the article on the Economy of the Iroquois, if you want to include information on the Iroquois using barter in trade, that's fine. It improves and expands the article. However, removing references to gift-gift giving and declaring them to be original research is not helpful. You do not provide any explanation on the talk page explaining why you think this is original research. Likewise, you ignore the fact that there are many references in the article backing up the claims of gift-giving, which, by definition, means this is not original research. Please be more careful when throwing around such accusations.--Bkwillwm 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is because i have not seen any credible sources citing the Iroquois as an example of a "gift economy" i think such an arguement is a bit of historical revisionism along with original research (and trying to prove ones own beliefs)
There's plenty of references in the trade section of the article. One is even online. Other references come from books found in a university library published by academic scholars. I don't know what more I can do to provide credible sources.--Bkwillwm 19:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Economics of the Iroquois" by Sites and then websites by advocates of the system (who are not scholarly) are the only ones who cite this position. Whether or not Sites calls it a gift economy is unknown.
One of the web references is a book by Bruce E. Johansen a Professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. He refers to Iroquois gift-giving in the Forgotten Fathers, which is online. You cannot simply dismiss websites because of the preceived opinion of the author, this is a genetic fallacy (see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html for another explanation). Also, you can't dismiss the Stites reference just because you don't have it in your hands. This is an illogical appeal to appeal to ignorance. Following the same illogic, I could remove everything you've written and state that it is unknown whether or not your sources actually say what they say because I have not read them, but I would not do this because it is illogical and ridiculous. Keep in mind that the entire Economy of the Iroquois is not a gift economy, gift-giving was mainly a feature of Iroquois trade.--Bkwillwm 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to the "Really Really Free Market Economy" websites and their ilk. I did not dismiss Sites work, I merely said I am unaware if she uses the term gift economy to discribe Iriquois economy, I have never heard the term applied to native american economic systems, so I remain doubtful yet I did not delete the citation. Your assesment of my logic is once again, incorrect. (Gibby 03:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC))
What are the "Really Really Free Market Economy" websites you're talking about?--Bkwillwm 05:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KDRGibby, it's a lead section . It's basically an abstract of the upcoming material. Have you ever seen a scientist cite a reference in his abstract? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good Work
Keep fighting the BS. You are an inspiration. Haizum 17:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your Dogmatism
You are using "communism" as nothing more than a club. Neither you or friedman can know- a priori - that parecon is subject to the same objections as other socialist models. You show no evidence of having read parecon related material with any care, your ignorance is readily demonstrated by your assertion that parecon has eliminated prices. They do offer reasons why mainstream critiques of central planning do not apply. You cannot legitimately argue against such reasons by the mere assertion that it is "communism." You need to demonstrate that you comprehend parecon's institutional design, and you need to specifically demonstrate why their claims for being different are unconvincing, and then proceed to the general critque, otherwise you're just playing at vulgar (and rather imperialistic) politics.BernardL 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, your intervention is analogous to me going over to the page on Austrian economics equipped with a marxist critique of neoclassical economics from a writer who had never read Hayek and adding 30% worth of straw man critique to that article. It's patently absurd. BernardL 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are one funny cookie. There is nothing more entertaining than a true believer defending the faith. Parecon is no different than any other mode of socialist/communist economics. It is equally absurd, equally grounded outside the bounds of reality, and equally faulted. Whoopty do if you think you can explain ways to create incentives (a failure of the gift economy crowd), but those explinations still remain insuffecient for real world applications.
And whats this about imperialistic politics? Did you just make this up? Go ahead and write a marxist critique of liberal economic thinking...it only only look silly by comparison. What you are demonstrating is an inability to adjust to criticism...you are only capable of destroying the opposition than explaining any percieved faults of your beliefs.
You are the one who is dogmatic (Gibby 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

v t e Communism
Concepts	Anti-capitalism Class conflict Class consciousness Classless society Collective leadership Communist party Communist revolution Communist state Commune Communist society Critique of political economy Free association "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Market abolitionism Proletarian internationalism Labour movement Social revolution Stateless society Wage slavery Workers' self-management World communism World revolution Dictatorship of the proletariat
Economics	Planned economy Gift economy Common ownership Socialization (Marxism) Economic democracy Use value
Variants	Anarchist Marxism Leninist Libertarian Pre-Marxist Utopian Primitive Religious Christian
History	Communist League First International Second International Third International Fourth International
Organisations	Communist Parties WPC WFTU WFDY IUS WIDF WFSW IOR
People	Mazdak More Meslier Babeuf Marx Engels Morris Kropotkin Malatesta Pannekoek Du Bois Lenin Luxemburg Kollontai Stalin Trotsky Lukács Thälmann Makhno Bukharin Ho Gramsci Tito Togliatti Benjamin Khrushchev Mao Zhou James Padmore Sartre Hoxha Beauvoir Nkrumah Kim Hobsbawm Althusser Freire Pasolini Mandel Fanon Castro Berger Guevara Guattari Debord Amin Berlinguer Negri Guzmán Badiou Sison Newton Ali Davis Holloway Hampton Zizek Sankara Öcalan Gordillo Gilmore Marcos Hardt Dean Graeber Lordon Kelley Fisher Prashad Hatherley Moufawad-Paul Saito
By region	Britain Colombia France India Kerala Korea Nepal Peru Philippines Poland Soviet Union Sumatra Vietnam
Symbols	Hammer and sickle Red flag (politics) Red star "The Internationale" "Workers of the world, unite!"
Criticism	Anti-communism Communist propaganda Criticism of communist party rule Criticism of Marxism
Related topics	21st-century communist theorists Anti anti-communism Anti-communist mass killings Anti-fascism Communitarianism Mass killings under communist regimes Internationalism Intentional community Left-wing politics Old Left New Left LGBTQ rights Marx's theory of alienation National communism Romania Red Scare Revolutionary socialism Socialist economics Socialist mode of production Trade union War communism Worker cooperative
Communism portal Socialism portal