Talk:Communism/Archive 2

message: Actually I do consider Nazism a variation of Socialism. You can read my opinion on the subject at Talk:Nazism. Additionally I intend to write an article on Gregor Strasser on this very subject. He was a Nazi who differed from Hitler in his feelings towards the soviets, and in his focus on the workers, etc.. He was pretty clearly a racialist communist. The subtleties of Nazi politics are nearly always glossed over by rabid POV. Anyways, for the record, Nazism had a variety of Socialist elements, and yet had the distict economic advantage of a business friendly policy (which if you look into it, was perhaps the sharpest difference betwixt Strasser and Hitler) and a vastly superior prowess in propaganda, found in the racialism and embrace of traditional culture as well as other areas. There are many variations of Socialism, which in its broadest, most general sense is any system which provides for the welfare of its citzens before the welfare of its corperations ;).
BTW, IMO the Socialism article is a mess, and is actually factually innacurate. In comparison, this page is in much better shape. Anybody want to help me make it better? Jack 03:22, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: that's because the term itself is heavily overused. IMO the Socialism article should be one real big disambig page with a very small common denominator. Mikkalai 04:44, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hitler]]

message: This discuss page seems to have degenerated into a "Communism is good so phoohey to you" "Communism is bad" "You must look at Stalinism and Maoism" "No `Communism' refers to an ideal" etc. etc.
Perhaps the constructive way out is to summarize the attempts of other recognized authors to critique communism?  George Orwell and Karl Popper spring to mind as two excellent and accessible critiques of "idealized communism".
Yeah! :D Jack 09:23, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are as many of these critiques as of critiques of the Bible. No matter how smart and witty they are, they all come from a very simple, basic error in premises: communism (in its "theoretical" meaning) is possible only either with limitless resources or with limited desires. Mikkalai 17:33, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a brilliant point, Mikkalai. Jack 08:24, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You touch precisely opon my complaint w communism: my limitless desires contrasted with my awareness of supply/demand :) Jack 08:38, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also the small issue of my love for my own personal freedoms (speech, gun ownership, travel, not being repressed...) and the bad PR that Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro (pretty much every example of Communism I can think of...) have given. These critiques of Communism clearly deserve more mention in this article. Jack 08:41, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: And from the very beginning the problem was well understood and solutions were developed. They were being implemented in the USSR, although not successfully. First solution - redistribution of wealth. It's not a problem per se and it doesn't lead to inefficiency - bad central planning does. Second solution - increase industrial capability. The USSR was doing that very successfully, but ran into limits of central planning soon (with modern ERP systems it could have been as efficient as any MNC). Third - raise people who do not care that much about material posessions, but about creative work for the well-being of all. It is quite obvious, also, that by sharing things you can provide much better quality of life than if everyone must buy everything for himself. So the fourth solution was to develop a very good social infrastructure, including health, educaiton, entertainment, sport, etc. Paranoid 08:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiques of Communism 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but communism evolves into socialism, not the other way around.
:You are wrong. Originally both words meant pretty much the same, as Marx and Engels didn't foresee any interim stages. But as USSR was not very successful building communism quickly, socialism started to mean what was already built. Then the term was applied to societies like Sweden and some other Western European countries. But communism doesn't evolve into socialism. Realistically it can only evolve into something like posthumanism. Paranoid 20:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communism/Socialism 

message: I find the following statement to be misleading, so I removed it from the page.
:Other communist movements, primarily Libertarian Socialism, differ with Leninism over the issue of the nature or importance of the party, and support for the idea of a government separate to working people's councils.
Libertarian socialism is not just a variant of communism.  Especially if communism is defined in the article as being 'revolutionary'.  Not all libertarian socialists believe in a 'revolution' (as opposed to an 'evolution'), and not all libertarian socialist self identify as 'communist'.  There are some like council communists that might be regarded as libertarian socialists (but not all libertarian socialists are council communists, left-communists, etc.).
Also, what does ...differ with Leninism over the issue of the nature or importance of the party... mean?  I don't think many libertarian socialists even consider 'the party' to be a valid issue.
The last portion of the sentance (...and support for the idea of a government separate to working people's councils.) doesn't even make grammatical sense to me. millerc 16:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate Statement

message: Millerc writes
“I find the following statement to be misleading, so I removed it from the page.
‘Other communist movements, primarily Libertarian Socialism, differ with Leninism over the issue of the nature or importance of the party, and support for the idea of a government separate to working people's councils.’
Libertarian socialism is not just a variant of communism. Especially if communism is defined in the article as being 'revolutionary'. Not all libertarian socialists believe in a 'revolution' (as opposed to an 'evolution'), and not all libertarian socialist self identify as 'communist'. There are some like council communists that might be regarded as libertarian socialists (but not all libertarian socialists are council communists, left-communists, etc.).
Also, what does ...differ with Leninism over the issue of the nature or importance of the party... mean? I don't think many libertarian socialists even consider 'the party' to be a valid issue.
The last portion of the sentence (...and support for the idea of a government separate to working people's councils.) doesn't even make grammatical sense to me. millerc 16:44, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Inaccurate Statement 

message: I don't understand this sentence: 'Shy of the word "communism" itself (because of its negative connotations in the United States), some authors today actually describe this as how it will be built in the 21st century.' What do 'this' and 'it' refer to? Someone who does understand it should make it clearer. Fpahl 19:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  unintelligible sentence 

message: I've reverted the change that added the Canadian New Democratic Party as a party whose basis is democratic socialism. I looked at their platform, and though I agree with most of it it is far from a socialist platform. In particular, it does not seek to substantially "reform existing state institutions". The sentence in the article is perhaps slightly confusing in that it lists the SPD and Labour Party, but doesn't explicitly say that they were founded on a basis of democratic socialism but have of course strayed far from it. I might change that. (The ambiguity, not the straying ;-) Fpahl 19:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. Fpahl 19:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian New Democratic Party 

message: I was re-reading the article and found this factual error;
::The ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, epitomized by their Communist Manifesto, transformed communism into a revolutionary movement. Marx and Engels claimed communism did not have to occur in isolated communities, but could emerge globally.
Marx and Engels claimed that communism could NOT occur in isolated communities, and ONLY emerge globally.  This was one of the arguments against Saint-Simon and Owen laid out in Engels "Socialism: Utopian & (vs.) Scientific".  I am going to change this since it is wrong and I can't see the possibility of any real disagreement on this (and am prepared to quote extensively from Marx and Engels if there is).  So far, this article is coming along.  I don't think it needs a re-write, but people should just wiki the hell out of things they see wrong!
-Capone 01:58, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Please do correct that. Shorne 02:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: = Factual Error