Talk:Communism/Archive 8

Talk:Communism/Archive1

Talk:Communism/Archive2

POV

this is one of the most pathetically POV articles i have ever seen. jesus christ on a cracker. you people need to get with the program and develop a little perspective. you also need to cut your hair and take a bath.

Definitions

I do not care about who is right or wrong on this issue, but the basic definitions of the word "communism" must remain in the beginning of the article. Please, dear partisans, stop meddling around with these definitions, since they are essentially dictionary definitions, which must be available at the beginning of the article, as they used to be, before these passionate recent changes.--McCorrection 19:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but not all definitions must be in one basket. there is main definition, and there are derivations. Of course, we must present common usage, but we must not contribute to confusion. Mikkalai 20:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your division of the definitions and concepts in the first part of the article was superb, Mikkalai! That is what an encyclopedia article must look like. --McCorrection 21:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, is someone going to make order with triplicate Marxism, Leninism and Marxism-Leninism sections? I am not. Mikkalai 20:48, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hello! My name is Fredrik Bendz, in case it won't show here. Anyway, I think the three-adjective-definition of communist is wrong. It just doesn't compute. A person is not an adjective, and neither is a political party. Why would there be a difference if the same adjective is applied to people or parties? Isn't the adjective the same? This should be clairified in the article.

Origin of the term

The following piece deleted, until solid confdirmation:

Though communism is generally concieved of as marxism, the word communism was in fact not coined by Karl Marx, but by the French philosopher Étienne Cabet in his book...

The person who inserted this phrase proceeded further with provably distorted history (fixed), so after some thought I decided to doubt in this phrase as well. Mikkalai 00:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, Talk:Communism/Archive1 contains a big piece about utopian socialism removed from elsewhere, that can be recycled here or in utopian socialism. Mikkalai 00:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

De-Alienation?

Just a question or two to whomever wrote that sub-section, or to anyone else who can help me; but where in the "Economic and Political Manuscripts of 1844" does Marx use the term "de-alienation"? Also, should this be in the article since it is a criticism of the communist state and not communism per se?

Another problem is that alienation isn't correctly explicated on in the article, totally leaving out reification, and I think that it is incorrect that a new concept is introduced into the article at the same time that it is compared against the states that claimed themselves to be socialist. Is it possible that a neutral particular section on alienation would not be too repetitive since it theoretically is covered in the Marxism article?

I should have prefaced the above by saying that I do think it is a valid point which is ok by my understanding of wiki standards to include a critical view that alienation was not overcome in the societies which claimed to be socialist. It is important to note however that this is a failure from the perspective of its own goals as seen through the eyes of other communists, socialists, and anarchists who critically analyzed the claims by the USSR (and like wise China) that it was socialist in the Marxist sense of the word.

Capone 07:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to simply repair what was factually wrong about the section on "de-alienation", to start with that Marx never even uses the term at any time. The definition of alienation needed more than just tuning, it needs re-writing. Capone 08:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Expand Criticisms Section

I propose to further expand the criticisms section, there could be another section of criticism. This one could be a criticism of the self described socialist states (called communist states in the United States) from the view of classical communist theory of Marx and even Lenin. I do not know if i could do this without help but it seems to me that there is a.) a criticism to live up to its own standards b.) a criticism that it didn't live up to western standards.

I am sure that there will be some overlap, and those would also be of special interest to a reader who is just starting to learn about communism, and will not be entirely boring to others potential readers with more background in the area. Capone 07:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest to differentiate criticisms of the ideas of communism theory from criticisms of particular implementations by particular states. In the latter case the place of the criticiasm is in the Communist state article. Mikkalai

"Self-proclaimed" China

There are two Chinas.
They are not only "Self-proclaimed". Others would call them communist regardles how they proclaim themselves. By the way, Vietnam is "self-proclaimed" "Socialist". Mikkalai 05:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you referring to taiwan or what do you mean?
Um, a self-proclaimed socialist state is what is called communist state by outsiders. I am not clear what you mean.

Capone 07:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ask the author, not me. He used the expression "self-proclaimed communist state". I don't know such ones. Mikkalai 07:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai, you got confused. The author, myself - I wrote "self described socialist states", because they call themselves "socialist" whether or not a.) they are objectively socialist or b.) there can be an objective determination of what socialism is or isn't. Capone69.111.189.126 21:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We may be talking about different things here. I had changed "People's Republic of China" to "China" and added "self-proclaimed" before "communist states". Mikkalai and I seem to have reached a consensus on this matter. See the recent changes if you're interested in the details. Shorne 22:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan can be called Taiwan if necessary. It is nothing but a rump-state and certainly doesn't deserve to be regarded as "China". It is a part of China that is internationally regarded as such, even in the two dozen countries (Honduras and the like) that it has bribed into recognising the "Republic of China". And the UN recognises only one state in China (including Taiwan Province). I will add "(the PRC)" for clarity.
The issue of "communist" and "socialist" is annoying. Technically it is wrong, and even nonsensical, to speak of a "communist state". As for "self-proclaimed", it is accurate. To say that those countries are communist or socialist is POV. If we're going to accept a country's self-description, we might as well call North Korea democratic ("Democratic People's Republic of Korea"). I'm not convinced that others universally call those countries communist. Certainly I don't. Even the Western media, hardly a Marxist-Leninist stronghold, often correctly say that China is capitalist. Shorne 13:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're confusing China and the People's Republic of China; the very good and impartial Wikipedia article on China clarifies the issue: "China is an ancient cultural and geographic entity in continental East Asia with some offshore islands which since 1949 has been divided between the People's Republic of China (governing Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau) and the Republic of China (governing Taiwan and several outlying islands of Fujian Province)."--McCorrection 15:52, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know very well what China and the PRC are, thank you. Shorne 16:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's convention throughout Wikipedia, that we're always using People's Republic of China when referring to the country. Aris Katsaris 16:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The country is China. The state is the People's Republic of China. If we're going to have "People's Republic of China", we should also have "Lao People's Democratic Republic" instead of "Laos". Shorne 19:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If there was any part of Laos that called itself "Republic of Laos" then I assure you we'd have used "Lao People's Democratic Republic" to distinguish between the two states. Right now there's no need. Aris Katsaris 19:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Primitive communism

The paragraph added after the section on primitive communism is out of place. It should be moved to the article "primitive communism" and perhaps expanded. Here only a brief mention of the dispute is appropriate. A long one interrupts the flow of the article.

Also, the quotation marks ("historical 'proof'") are POV. Change to "view of history" or something similar. Shorne 23:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Crimes of communism

I'll repeat what I wrote yesterday:

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

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

You can agree with the data from the Black book or not. We can add a note that these data are often questioned, no problem. But to try to ignore those data and to keep silence over the effects of communism is deeply immoral. Maybe we should put that information in another article. But let's discuss the matter instead of calling the data "propaganda" and removing them. I know you may not like it, but communists ARE responsible for deaths of millions of people. Boraczek 09:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your "data" is contradicted by just about every other historian on the planet (see this List of Sources and Detailed Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century), and it seems you can't even name the country where your "well documented" situations took place. You're acting exactly like the people who use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as "evidence" of a massive Jewish conspiracy bent on world domination. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An apt analogy. Shorne 11:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, the link referenced by Mihnea itself recognizes that Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of 20 million people. But, "of course", even though he was recognized by most communists as their leader during his lifetime, the supreme guide of almost all Communist Parties, from the US to South America, from Mongolia to Japan, his bloody legacy is now rejected. I am still not sure if the millions of deaths caused directly by Communist regimes should be mentioned in this article, but the permanent refusal even to acknowledge the direct cause-effect relationship between Communism, Communist regimes, and the deaths of millions of innocents during the 20th century is mindboggling. Even more disturbing is the slandering of any reasonable person who mentions the death and destruction wrought by Communist regimes as "fascists", while the Communist partisans themselves are the ones acting in ways similar to the Holocaust deniers. My aim in Wikipedia is to correct partisanship, but the narrowmindedness of the ideologues is always unfathomable. --McCorrection 23:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Utterly distorted. I have nothing more to say; I've wasted enough time this week on this sort of rubbishy complaint. Shorne 00:19, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to the petulant demand for the use of the Black Book of Communism

Text taken from Communist state. Shorne 09:16, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

No one who looks seriously at the book will say that it is anything but crude propaganda. Fred Bauder posted elsewhere (on which page, Fred?) several links to articles that refute it more easily than I can, since I don't have a copy to hand. The book has also been roundly criticised in such mainstream publications as the French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique. (Here's a link for those who read French: [1].)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I already answered to that post in Talk:Communist state and I don't need to do it again.

Oh, don't worry about me. I probably shouldn't have cast my pearls before swine in the first place. More fool I. Shorne 12:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please read this part from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them."

If you say that my point of view is anti-communist propaganda and I say that your point of view is communist propaganda, we won't get anywhere. Asserting that the data from the Black Book are necessarily true is POV and removing the data just because they are not advantageous to communism is POV as well. Let's present conflicting views without asserting them. Maybe the data from the Black Book are exaggerated. But this is not a reason to remove them completely and to ignore the fact of communist terror and other disastrous consequences of the communist system. It is a reason to add in the article, that the data are questioned. And I agree that they are questioned by many people. But it's not true that they are questioned by all people. Boraczek 10:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, my first suggestion is that we move those "Crimes of Communism" to a new article. Maybe we should create an article "Black Book of Communism"? What do you think? Boraczek 10:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine. By all means, go right ahead and follow this link: The Black Book of Communism. Start by writing the article, and then we'll see what needs to be edited. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I read Shorne's message, of course, and I think it is a piece of disgusting communist propaganda, aiming at denying communist crimes. Are you happy knowing this? We won't get anywhere this way.

I should have expected that. When insane anti-communists run out of arguments, they always resort to pathetic insults. So, yes, you're right - we'll never get anywhere this way. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Actually, it is you who "resorted to pathetic insults" first. Let me quote what you wrote: remove the idiotic propaganda of the Black Book. And now you're insulting me, which is definitely not a way to solve the problem. Boraczek 11:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we create a separate article, report what the Black Book says and then list objections to it. It is not our task to judge who is right and who is wrong. Our task is to present conflicting views. I'd only like to ask Shorne not to add objections to the article, because if he starts writing the article, we will fall in an endless edit war. Shorne, please don't do it. Let Mihnea or some other Wikipedian do it. Boraczek 11:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By what right do you decide what I may and may not do? Who the hell made you God? In any event, I sincerely doubt whether Black Book of Communism (have you even read the thing, or do you just brandish it as a fundamentalist Christian brandishes his unread Bible?) deserves an article. This is not the place for book reviews. If it does get an article, it will have to be treated fully, and that means that you most certainly will not be able to control the POV or "objections" to what you say. Shorne 11:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At least it will move the controversy away from the main Communism article, and place Boraczek's claims in a more appropriate place, where they can be dissected and analyzed at leisure. Therefore, I support the creation of an article on The Black Book of Communism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:46, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it's just an attempt to establish credibility for the 856-page bundle of coarse toilet paper by getting it mentioned in Wikipedia. This deserves an article about as much as my local telephone directory does—nay, less, for at least the data in the telephone directory are 95% correct or better. Furthermore, I doubt very much whether Boraczek intends to write an article about the book itself—its authors, its (ahem) style, the quality of its research—; almost certainly he just wants a space to promote its fanciful claims. Sort of like the believers in the Evil Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy". They slip their trash in through the back door on the grounds that the "controversy" surrounding it or its "historical value" makes it worthy of attention, then they proceed to erect a bully pulpit from which to spew their anti-Jewish venom.

That said, I won't oppose the article. Mihnea's points have some merit. Go ahead and write the article if you wish. We'll see how "NPOV" it ends up being. Shorne 12:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have to be joking. Everyone here has heard of the Black Book of Communism, that book has won worldwide fame and infamy -- and you claim it doesn't "deserve" an article in Wikipedia? Aris Katsaris 03:56, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, we've given it an article, all right: The Black Book of Communism. Has Boraczek contributed to it? Hell, no! What a lying propagandist! Claiming that it was important that the words of his sacred anticommunist bible be shared on Wikipedia, then failing to write one word when given the chance. I'll bet ten roubles that he's never even read the goddam book. Shorne 04:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just can't think of any other way to stop Boraczek's continued trolling on this article... So, Boraczek, do you agree to start writing about the "Black Book" in its own separate article? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I know what you mean. Like some other people here whose right-wing outlook rests on nothing but unfounded opinions, he'll wail and wail of persecution until we yield to his demands. Sure, go off and write the stupid article. I can't promise, however, that I won't modify it. Shorne 12:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Differentiation of wages

For example, the differentiation of wages in Poland in 1987 was at nearly the same level as the differentiation of wages in highly developed capitalist countries.

Why do you remove this part? These are just statistical data. I gave a reference. The source is in Polish, so probably many of you won't be able to read it without a translator. But if you want, I can scan the source and send it to you. Or I can search for an English version. These are just true statistical data, why do you remove them? Is anything that is not in agreement with a left-wing point of view necessarily an "anti-communist" propaganda? Can't you discuss or add something instead of automatically removng any data you don't like? Wikipedia is a place for providing information and not for promoting communism, I think. Please discuss. Boraczek 09:36, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you take your own advice and reply to Shorne's lengthy post right above yours? You do insert ridiculous and self-contradictory anti-communist propaganda (the Black Book claims "100 million" but even its own over-inflated numbers only add up to 92.36), and then accuse us of supporting "communist propaganda" when we merely want to remove the kind of statements that can be summarized as "cOmmUnizM is t3H eVil". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:54, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That communists killed many people is a fact. I can't help it. If that means that communism is evil, I can't help it. And to try to hide that fact is definitely POV. You just removed the data and that brought about the edit war. Then you inserted a POV message and that was OK. We can think how to make the article NPOV. Oh, well, Shorne came and started the edit war again. That man is unbelievable. Boraczek 10:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course the communists killed people. And the capitalists killed people too. The question is how many. And, as Shorne pointed out, you have to balance this out with the number of lives saved (or at least improved) by the communists. And how exactly was my message POV? I just did the math. 92.36 does not equal 100. That's a mathematical fact, which exposes the most blatant and unforgivable lie in the Black Book. And just because I didn't continue the revert war, that doesn't mean I don't agree with Shorne. He is absolutely correct, and you are, frankly, a troll. But since you seem to be a very persistent troll, I must try to find some way to reason with you. So, let us begin. Please answer these two simple questions: (1) Have you read Shorne's lengthy post which explains why the Black Book is an unreliable, POV piece of propaganda? (2) Do you understand that allegations regarding the "crimes of communism" don't belong in this article?

Sorry, I didn't write it correctly, I meant the "NPOV dispute" message rather than a message that was POV. For the rest of my reply, please see above. Boraczek 11:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But I'm asking: why do you remove the part about the differentiation of wages? What do you think is wrong with it? Boraczek 10:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I never removed it, and I have no intention to ever remove it. Keep your differentiation of wages, but please, for God's sake, remove the idiotic propaganda of the Black Book. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Black Book is not propaganda, but a serious academic study. No wonder it has been published in the US not by a rightwing think tank, but by Harvard University Press. Naturally, not even Harvard is serious enough for the passionate ideologues.--McCorrection 00:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested

User VeryVerily's intransigence and impossible behaviour have left me no option but to request mediation. People who have anything to add to my request are asked to visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Shorne 11:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I support this request and have requested joining the mediation. I will also request that others who have have been involved in the disputes with respect to this article also join. Fred Bauder 13:45, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Please note, as I have already mentioned on that page, that no one else is welcome to "join" the dispute at this time, for reasons that shall become apparent soon. Contributions, however, are invited. Shorne 13:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that this article is beyond mediation -- and even arbitration -- due to flaws inherant to it's title (too vague. This dispute has been 'resolved' at least twice now, and apparently it's cropped up a third time. The primary reason for this, I believe, is because the article is named improperly, to horrific results displayed by the perhaps-twice-monthly Flame- and Edit Wars here.

Therefore, the system of articles should be rebuilt. I have one such plan here.

--Oceanhahn 03:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"92.36 million"

Even 92.36 million is an overstatement. Most of the fantastic figures are given to only one significant digit of accuracy; therefore, the total is properly 90 million, not 92.36 million. The claim of 100 million represents more than 10% on top of an already whopping lie. Shorne 13:55, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's the amazing thing - not only did they exaggerate all the numbers completely out of proportion, but they also added nearly 10 million deaths out of thin air, without even pretending to have any sort of sources for them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Last edits by Shorne

Please discuss your changes here before you revert and put them in the article again. In my opinion, those changes blatantly violated the NPOV policy and were not justified. Boraczek 10:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why? Just because you didn't like them? Shorne 11:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because you deleted true (at least IMHO) information without giving any reason, even if the fact that you only deleted the parts disadvantegeous for communism and left the parts advantageous for communism lets us guess the reason. Please discuss the changes before making them. Boraczek 19:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is a shame that this article must be constantly policed, but partisan remarks that obliterate neutrality must be erased.--McCorrection 17:58, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who is being partisan? Ruy Lopez correctly removed some material that was out of place. The content of the material has not (yet) been in question. He told you where to put it. Go and put it there if you wish. Shorne 20:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd expect some explanation why the material is out of place. I think the material is relevant, because it substantiates the statement that communism may look beautiful in theory, but its implementation brings about negative consequences. Maybe there's good reason to move it to another article. But Ruy Lopez didn't move it to another article, he just deleted it. I'd like to get to know your arguments. Boraczek 22:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

overthrown

both the communist states of Eastern Europe and the government of the Soviet Union were overthrown

I have a doubt about the word "overthrown". Eastern and Central Europe countries followed different paths. What happened in Romania was a mass revolt. What happened in Poland and Hungary was a pact between communists and the opposition. What happened in Czechoslovakia was an implosion of the system. I am not a native speaker of English, so I can't be sure, but I guess the word "overthrown" can be too strong in some of these cases. Boraczek 21:10, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For once I agree with Boraczek. They weren't overthrown; they fell apart. I'll make the change. Shorne 22:16, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the path was different in each country, see The Strange Death of the Soviet Empire, ISBN 0805041540 which contains extensive interviews with the last rulers and those who suplanted them. In all cases the ruling role of the Communist Party was abandoned. Fred Bauder 23:00, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Then why did you restore "overthrown"? I shall remove it again. Shorne 23:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because I couldn't think of a better word. Your replacement, "Both the communist states of Eastern Europe and the government of the Soviet Union collapsed." seems rather insipid. You also removed this sentence, "On the other hand, the theory and practice of achieving this society usually involved systemic application of terror." In what way is this POV? It was Lenin's and the other leaders of the Soviet state's point of view, see pages 59 and 76 of The Black Book of Communism. Further down you removed "When the threat of terror was removed under the leadership of Gorbachev both the communist states of Eastern Europe and the government of the Soviet Union were overthrown and replaced it with "Both the communist states of Eastern Europe and the government of the Soviet Union were overthrown" with the comment, "POV reference to "terror" deleted, for reasons too obvious to mention to anyone more intelligent than a canary" leaving the reference . The cited reference is full of references to a use of force and to both Gorbachev's refusal to use it and to fear that if they did try to use force it would result in disaster as indeed it did in Romania.

I will try for better language than "overthrown" but terror belongs in the article. The Soviet leaders talked the talk and walked the walk and we would not be honest to not credit them. Fred Bauder 00:47, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Insipid? I wish I had a kopek for every time I've heard "the collapse of communism" in the Western press. I merely chose a common word to replace one that we all agree to be inaccurate. As for terror, why don't you go and read the article terrorism yourself? It admits that the term is merely a political slogan, therefore POV. I don't understand how you can honestly assert that terror is factual and NPOV. You apparently need to be given lessons, preferably in one-syllable words. Shorne 01:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chaotic

This article is still much too chaotic. Stuff about Ceausescu is mixed in with Plato and hippies. The whole thing needs to be restructured before we add more details about tangential stuff, to say nothing of quadrillions of alleged murders and "concentration camps". Shorne 21:26, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Force

All this stuff about the use of force is POV. Only the article on communism is being filled with this sort of stuff. I'm going to go and add some stuff about the "crimes of capitalism" to Capitalism and see how long it lasts. That will nicely expose the duplicity of the people who are trying to impose the POV that communism is the devil incarnate. Shorne 00:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, we are tools of the giant capitalist agenda -- or perhaps we simply understand what NPOV means far better than you. Do whatever bullshit propagandistic changes you'd like in the capitalism article -- I'm sure the good people there will revert them. On my part I'm gonna be removing propaganda from this articles on *my* watchlist -- your sentence "as with all others in today's world" remains a blatant piece of meaningless newspeak. All others what? I'm sure that *communistic* theory believes that are societies are founded on violence, but if you don't see that portraying the communist view of society as FACT is espousing YOUR point of view, then you are simply hopeless. Gandhi's theories also espoused violence the same way Lenin's did? Really? Are you gonna back that up with facts the implied claim that all political theories about societal reformation are equally founded on violence?

Aren't they? Do police forces not exist? Armies? Was capitalism instituted over tea and macaroons? Shorne 01:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Police forces in free nations exist to *prevent* violence, not to cause it. In peaceful nations, armies likewise exist only to defend -- unlike the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, unlike the murders at Tienamen square, all of them done in defense of communism.

Or the invasions by the US of Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Zaïre, the Soviet Union, the Philippines—need I go on?

I could point out that a great many communists condemn every one of the acts that you cited and that many would state that the murders at Tian'anmen Square (note spelling) were the act of a capitalist régime. But I might as well say it to a brick wall, for all the good it will do to stop this J-Edgar-Hooverite game of red-baiting. Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could also point whatever condemnations you'd like -- the point is that Marxism-Leninism has *violent revolution* as a part of its ideological core, and it expressly and intentionally puts no barriers on the right of the state to use violence to achieve its purposes. Liberal democracies do put very many barriers on the right of the state to use violence. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism has *violent revolution* at its core. Look at the US and France, just to name two examples.

Marxism-Leninism also has violent revolution at its core. You're quite right; no argument there. Why? Mao: "We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." If capitalism will lay down its weapons of mass destruction and politely hand power over to the communists, maybe no war will be needed. Shorne 02:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it's only communists who see the whole world division as between communism (or "socialism") and capitalism. It's only communists who treat capitalism as a *political* system, rather than an economical one. AND THAT'S BLATANT POV. Capitalism has "violent revolution" at its core? Since I believe it has no ideological core, that's only the communists belief about what capitalism entails, unlike the core of Marxism-Leninism which is accepted by *all*. Communists may say that the French and American revolutions were about the installment of capitalist governments, but the French and Americans themselves might say that those were revolutions about political freedoms instead. And you still don't get it: You keep on treating economical and political systems as if they were one and the same: namely the *communist* POV which you are trying to push on the rest of us. BUT UNLIKE MARXISM-LENINISM, CAPITALISM ISN'T UNIFIED BY ANY *ONE* POLITICAL THEORY. It only means the existence of private property and nothing more than that.

And in most of eastern Europe, the capitalistic-democratic revolts at the end of the Cold war were peaceful btw, with the exception of Romania. Aris Katsaris 19:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Liberal democracy doesn't espouse violent suppression of dissidents, no matter how you would like it to. Aris Katsaris 01:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nor does communism espouse purges and famines, however much you would like it to. Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In its Marxist-Leninist form it very definitely espouses violence against the "counter-revolutionary" forces. And communist ideology very definitely espouses the *right* of the state to do whatever it feels is necessary for the good of the "Revolution". Communism espouses violent overthrow and violent reform of society, even as much as 19th century slavery espoused the right to use whippings to keep black slaves under control. Were the purges the *point*? No, they were simply the proscribed method. Aris Katsaris 02:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prove it. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quote from Lenin. "It is impossible to remain loyal to Marxism, to the Revolution, without treating insurrection as an art." Quotes from Mao. "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the purges? It's about revolution. Shorne 19:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This demand, "Prove it", goes to the essence of the problem I and others are having with you, Shorne. We can and have proved it with respect to a number of issues. You quarrel with The Black Book of Communism, but even some critics of the sweeping generalizations that Stéphane Courtois makes in his introduction admit that the section on the Soviet Union written by Nicolas Werth is generally well researched and reliable, see the review of the book in The Journal of American History Review - Journal of American History. Terror and the use of force to gain and maintain power was a declared policy of the Soviet Union. This is amply documented in great detail in Werth's chapters on the Soviet Union. We can legitimately search for ways to attribute this information to critics; even include properly attributed denials, but the mass of information with respect to use of force more than proves it, as you put it. Although what it proves for Wikipedia purposes it that the question of use of force, which the Soviet leaders themselves referred to as terror definitely belongs in the article. Fred Bauder 13:48, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've already smashed your Black Book of Bullshit to smithereens. Users are welcome to look over the shards at Talk:Communism, Talk:Communist state, and Talk:The Black Book of Communism. I'm not going to answer the moronic comment about terror as "a declared policy of the Soviet Union" made by someone who has proved that he doesn't listen to a goddam thing that he doesn't like to hear; I have better things to do with my time. Shorne 19:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism is about selling and buying within the system, not about violent revolution as Marxism-Leninism ~has been in theory and practice. And unlike the practice of communism, almost all modern capitalistic societies allow people to declare themselves adherents of communism without fear of death, imprisonment or exile. Aris Katsaris 00:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Black Panthers? COINTELPRO? McCarthy? Chile? Brazil? Greece? Shorne 01:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, *sure* in capitalistic dictatorships there's as much violence as in communistic dictatorships. Which is very different from just saying "capitalism" as if it's enough. In capitalistic democracies there's not. In the last 30 years since the junta fell in Greece, the greatest amount of political violence was from the murderous terrorism of a communist-ideology group. Not from its still going strong "capitalism". Aris Katsaris 01:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for labelling the United States (Black Panthers, COINTELPRO, McCarthy, and the ringleader in the other three cases) a "capitalistic dictatorship". Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am in no particular interest to play your beloved games of wordage. USA under McCarthy was horrible, but even then it didn't reach the levels of political suppression that even the *nicest and mildest* communist regime ever had. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that this is nothing but POV. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You just go right ahead, but don't expect me to be over there reverting you. My quarrel is not with communism, but with killing people and then trying to lie out of it. Fred Bauder 00:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Who is guilty of that, pray? Shorne 00:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer, Fred Bauder. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Police forces in free nations exist to *prevent* violence, not to cause it." "Liberal democracy doesn't espouse violent suppression of dissidents". Oh really? Maybe you'd like to watch this video [2] (Portland A22) and explain to me what's going on there, for I must have completely misunderstood. - pir 01:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Download a 75MB video? Not likely, no broadband connection is mine. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't watch it. You might get pepper spray in your eyes. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brief description of the video: large demo against Bush by all kinds of people, mostly liberals, religious pacifists, ecologists and anarchists. Lots of elderly people, families with kids, students. No violence from portesters at all, no material that could be used for violence to be seen either (not with the demonstrators at least, the coppers are fully armed). At some point the police (in full riot gear) start charging into the demo, pepper spraying, beating people with batons, shooting tear gas and rubber bullets, arresting people. If you don't want to watch the video have a look at these pics [3] of a fat copper having fun mashing up a defenceless woman. They even managed to pepper spray infants together with their parents [4]. Oh, I know, you'll think it's all the work of "a few rotten apples". But look at how the city authorities reacted [5]. In practice, the police are pretty much above the law, and that is ultimately the reason why the "rotten apples" do what they do. Now ask yourself: why are the police not democratically accountable? - pir 13:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of suppression, may I point out that the United States and the United Kingdom, in evident concert with Switzerland, Italy, France, and perhaps other nations, last week seized all the servers of Indymedia, which made that video available? Indymedia still has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Lovely illustration of capitalist-style "freedom of speech". Shorne 02:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I lived under a mild communist regime, now I live in a democratic and capitalist state and I have to say that whatever objections may be raised against "bourgeois democracy", there is a HUGE difference in freedom of speech between the two. I think a good test for the presence of democracy is answering this question: can you publicly say that your country is not democratic and you won't be censored, arrested and/or fired at work? The answer valid for "bourgeois democratic" states is "yes, you can", the answer valid for communist states is "no, you can't". This really makes a difference. And this also shows that there is a difference between the ranges of using force by communist states and of using force by democratic states. Boraczek 13:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'd have to agree that police are supposed to be there to keep people safe, but there are real a-holes in any profession. Perhaps the difference is in what the police are officiall and unofficially ordered to do by their superiors. And I think that that has a lot to with which administration is in power. In any case, let's keep in mind that any form of government can fall prey to corruption. Additionally, I would like to add that subtlety is the key when trying to convince someone. You can't just cram an idea down someone's throat -- they'll just vomit it back up all over you. It's better to present a buffet of ideas and opinions and let people choose what seems the most truthful. And if you make your case clearly, concisely, and honestly, they'll probably side with you. -- Tim McCormack 02:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC) Disclaimer: I don't actually have much of an opinion at all about communism in general.

Thanks for taking a balanced view. Indeed, your words are precisely what I said in my change: communism, like other systems of government today, does use force. I'm going to restore the change now, since there seems to be little genuine dispute about it. Shorne 02:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no, that conclusion isn't possible from what was stated above. What Tim said is that any government can fall prey to corruption - but that's a failing of the human element, not an inherent part of the system. The argument regarding communism is that communist governments used force as their modus operandi in dealing with dissidents. While it is true that some "capitalist" governments have engaged in repression, this is not a feature of the system. Capitalism as an economic philosophy (I recommend consulting the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo for a primer) does not call for nor rely upon force to achieve its ends. Quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, capitalism does not define a system of government. While it is true that capitalism is most often found with liberal democracies, this is more reflective of free systems finding each other than a categorical imperative. Opposed to this, we have the writings of Lenin, who believed absolutely in force, and the examples of communist regimes around the world. I am not familiar with any communist regime that has permitted real, open, criticism and dissent while remaining communist. I am familiar, however, with the methods by which the Soviet Union, North Korea, the People's Republic of China, and East Germany, to name a few, kept themselves in power without the open consent of the citizenry. While it can be argued that the United States has taken a disturbing turn towards authoritarianism, this reflects the personality of President Bush and his administration, and is notably at odds with the policies of his predecessor, which would seem to indicate that the use of force against ones own citizeny (which is not the same as the use of force abroad) is not part and parcel with democratic capitalism. Mackensen 04:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my comments. I am not supporting any of the viewpoints presented here; I am merely presenting an alternative view of the origins of violence in a system. What I am saying is that no known system of government is inherently violent. Whether certain ones are more prone to violence is a completely different matter, and one that is (quite possibly) impossible to argue logically or on a factual basis. The only thing that can be stated with a firm backing is that certain governments have had certain reputations. Beyond this there is always a question of who ordered what and how the information has been distorted. No more, no less. Besides, whether police brutality in Portland is a direct consequence of the capitalist system has nearly no relevance to an article on the principles and history of communism. I encourage all parties to focus on the goal of this article: to present a "fair and balanced" view of a concept from both ideological and historical standpoints. If people are having a difficult time keeping the two separate (which, admittedly, is easier said than done), then perhaps a splitting of the article is called for, into said divisions. My hands are tired, so I'm going to stop writing now. -- Tim McCormack 18:25, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who won't face reality. Capitalism is just as dependent upon force as any other social system. Capitalism requires police, armies, security guards, and other institutions that protect the interest of the bourgeoisie. Socialism requires police and the like that protect the interest of the proletariat. The only difference is that socialism is honest about it: it speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Capitalism never admits to being the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

So-called "Socialism" has never been honest about being the dictatorship of the Communist Party elite. Do you think North Korea is likewise a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as opposed to a dictatorship of the "Dear Leader"? But you are right in one thing -- so-called "socialism" *admits* to being a dictatorship atleast, while capitalism doesn't. That's why it's not a violation of NPOV to name it those countries dictatorships that are dependent on force -- because both their supporters and their opponents do believe them to be such: unlike what we believe about liberal democracies. Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem to confuse the theory with the reality. In theory, communist governments should protect the interest of the proletariat. In practice, however, they protected the interest of the political bureaucracy, as Milovan Djilas called it, that is, communist party officials. And, as sociological analyses show, workers are the social category which is most deprived of power in communist states. So, implemented communism reveals a high level of hypocrisy. Boraczek 13:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

End of argument from me until you've done some reading and some thinking. I don't have time for this nonsense. Shorne 05:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that's the rudest reply I've ever gotten on these pages. I would ask that you treat those of us who don't agree with you with some measure of respect. Your comment about capitalism needing police, armies, and security could just as easily be addressing sovereign states in general, and as such I won't dispute it. I will, however, dispute most strongly your attempt to equate such structures in "capitalist" states with those in communist states. Now, it is true that, like in any system, there are abuses/controversial actions, some of them horrible. To cite obvious examples: the WTO riots in Seattle, the American invasion of Iraq. However, these were also heavily discussed in the news media at the time, and the government has been highly criticized for its action from many quarters. It is entirely possible that the current administration will be turned out because of citizen dissatisfaction. For a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there's a remarkable amount of dissent, and not all of it from the middle class. Now, you who've told me to read and think, tell me what would happen if people publicly criticized a communist government in the same position. Mackensen 06:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dispute to the idea that violence and repression are not an in-built feature of capitalism. Free-market capitalism causes what is usually called the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, which in turn causes social conflict. The way to deal with these social conflicts is (at least when other methods fail) by force, usually the police force. I'm not just talking about excesses here, I'm also talking about things like Clinton's "three strikes and you're out". The main role of the police force in capitalist societies is to maintain property relations. Most Western capitalist states try to alleviate social conflict by re-distribution of wealth and other state intervention into the market, but with the advent of neo-liberalism that's pretty much over. You can see it more clearly for example in Latin American capitalist countries, where police repression is a lot harsher (and I'm talking about the current "democratic" states, not the Pinochet-style dictatorships) than in Western countries (although this is not reported much - just look up the events around the Brukman factory in Argentina for example). I'm just talking about internal repression here, the violence used by capitalist states to maintain access to strategicially important resources like Middle Eastern oil is another aspect. Oh - and just for your information, the US imprisons a higher percentage of the population at this point than the USSR under Stalin. - pir 11:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, Stalin simply killed them instead. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the "land of the free" is the world's biggest prison state, with the possible exception of Rwanda during the recent war there, and has been for several decades. US imprisonment of Blacks greatly exceeds that of South Africa under apartheid. Shorne 12:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We have a different definition of what constitutes a "prison state". For me a prison state is a state which you are not allowed to leave. Which makes the communist bloc, the largest group of prison states that there ever existed. Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still, prisons of the US seem to be luxurious hotels when compared with prisons and gulags of the USSR. Let's take the simpliest statistics. Few people die in the prisons of the US, while the estimate of the number of people who died in inhuman conditions in Soviet gulags is 12 million. Your argument is just based on obliterating the difference of degree. A pinch on a cheek can be regarded as an act of violence and burrning a man alive is an act of violence. We say "in the USSR so many people were burnt alive" and you answer "but in the US an even higher number of people were pinched on a cheek, so the US is as violent a state as the USSR". Boraczek 14:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In addition, please don't forget that the establishment of capitalist societies is usually just as violent as the establishment of (allegedly) communist/socialist societies. The bourgeois French Revolution was a pretty bloody business (guillotine, the Terror etc.) ; the colonisation of North American involved slaughtering a lot of native Americans, slavery was an important factor in developing the US economy, to give just two examples. - pir 12:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Astute comments by Pir and Shone. I couldn't have said it better myself. 172 12:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice strawman you've got there. The colonization of North America reminds me more of a mercantilist economic system working in tandem with a monarchy. Consider that the American Revolution, which was arguably a revolution by liberal capitalists against a monarchy, only turned violent when the monarchy attempted to crush dissent. As for the French Revolution, I'm not sure how you're pinning that one on capitalists. Before you go flinging around random examples of brutality in history, I think you owe it to all of us engaged in the debate to explain how they are relevant. Mackensen 14:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only point I'm trying to make here (and I think it's quite a trivial point) is the following: if you want to install a radically new economic/social/political system and abolish the existing one, you usually need to use large-scale violence because there will be resistance. And once such a system is installed, it needs to crush internal dissent when it becomes strong enough to actually be a threat. I am not arguing in favour of (or against) communism, or capitalism, or the American Revolution here. I'm just saying that the use of violence is an "inbuilt feature". Regarding "the American Revolution, which was arguably a revolution by liberal capitalists against a monarchy, only turned violent when the monarchy attempted to crush dissent", I feel that fully supports my point.

No, I would disagree. The violence did indeed begin because one system conflicted with another. However, the violence also ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The United States did not need to rely upon wholesale terrorizing of its citizens to maintain its position. Compare this to communist countries, which have always maintained a large and powerful secret police to control their citizens. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For communism it's much easier to show that violence is an inbuilt feature, because you had a have learned men with beards sit down and work out how to achieve this, and write it down. With capitalism, people used violence without writing down all their justifications and thought beforehand. But that doesn't prove it's not an inbuilt feature.

You have yet to prove that capitalism relies on violence towards its citizens to maintain itself. Let's be clear about this. Enforcement of property rights is one thing, mass-jailing or execution of citizens something else altogether. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my argument that free-market capitalism causes ever increasing social inequality, which in turn causes social conflict. The tool to deal with these social conflicts is by force, usually the police force, whose role is to maintain property relations. - pir 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This discussion seems very polarized. Perhaps progress could be made if both sides concede some of the points that the other is making. On the one side, it seems clear to me that there have historically been differences of degree in the amount of state-internal violence used within states that claimed to be committed to communism and states that are committed to capitalism. Whether these differences are to be explained in terms of differences between these two systems of thought or are better explained by other causes is a different question -- perhaps pir and Shorne can agree that there were such differences of degree? On the other side, it also seems clear to me that capitalism is based on upholding extensive property rights by violence and the threat thereof. While it may be true that every state needs a police, the police might have a lot less to do if it didn't have to uphold property rights as defined in capitalist states. One may find such extensive property rights a good or a bad idea, and one may find them such a good idea that one agrees they should be upheld using violence, but the same is of course also true about communism -- one may find it such a good idea that one agrees that it should be brought about or defended using violence. Perhaps the others can agree that this is indeed violence inherent in the system? Fpahl 15:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree. I am certainly no Stalinist apologist. I do think there are differences in the amount of internal repression. However, I think the main reason for that are the historical circumstances rather any inherent noble features of capitalism. - pir 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all we've got to work with are historical circumstances. And, historically, I doubt very much that you could find a communist government that stayed in power with the open and willful consent of those governed. Mackensen 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point, Fpahl, is that this stuff is POV. I've never denied that countries pursuing communism have to make use of violence for certain purposes. I do object to the single-minded inclusion of this stuff in an article on communism as if it were 1) the very essence of communism; 2) not also characteristic of capitalism. Capitalism had by far the most blood on its hands in the twentieth century, and I can prove it. Shorne 19:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism

I haven't participated in the critique of capitalism above. Simply put, this article is not about capitalism and the methods of control "democratic" states use. I guess the question to pose is: How should the nature of capitalist societies affect the content of this article? I sense there is some sentiment that some of the gory details (as well as broad generalizatons) ought to be omitted as capitalism is just as bad or even worse or have I unjustly stated the case? Fred Bauder 14:07, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be the position of Shorne, pir, and 172, yes. However, I would strongly contest that comparison and I don't think I would be alone in doing so. My position would be that violence/repression is an inherent part of communism and that the evidence from the 20th century combined with an analysis of the writings on Lenin and others justify this position. As for capitalism, it's relevant only as a tu quoque defense. There is no proof that I've seen on these pages that capitalism - which is only an economic system, not also a social system - needs the repression of its citizens in order to function. While there are examples of regimes that possess capitalist economic systems that have engaged in repression, I have yet to see examples that would convince me that this was because of the nature of capitalism, and not of the regime. Mackensen 14:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Large file warning

Perhaps it is time to archive this file (again)? You'll probably want to delete this section ("Large file warning") once people agree on archival. Tim McCormack 02:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Added Template

I've been trying to get this template going. If anyone disagrees with it, remove it; I stopped caring a while ago. --Oceanhahn 03:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hope I can do something to encourage you, but I must admit that I understand completely. Thanks for the nice template. We won't let anyone ruin it. Shorne 03:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, JFO! It looks great. The Communist Ideology page is still in progress, isn't it? --McCorrection 10:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)