Talk:Communism/Archive 8

message: Discussion on whether or not this section should be included...
Contrary to original communist theory, and even communism as it has been practiced under regimes such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, the People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, the People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy . 	
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." 	It might be interesting to broaden this section with examples in North Korea and Vietnam. Electionworld 09:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not. The reasons for excluding the section are that it is off-topic, irrelevant, POV original research. Please give it a rest. Information on the economy of China can be found in economy of the People's Republic of China. Information on the CPC can be found in Communist Party of China. Please give it up here. 172 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You cannot be serious. I have no passionate opinions about this subject matter whatsoever. I could personally care less about the content of your section; and I don't think that any other editor has a strong ideological view on this topic, for that matter. However, I do have a strong opinion on the need to keep information in the communism article relevant to the topic, because I care about helping Wikipeidia develop along the lines of its goals. Please try to be civil-- and take your concerns to articles where they are not tangential-- such as economy of the People's Republic of China and Communist Party of China. 172 21:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 172, while I think that Gibby is being uncivil, he has a point. Why exactly is this section not relevant? --Pianohacker 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above. 172 23:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  We were doing fine without it a month ago, and I have explained (in archive 7) that it's redundant. Consider this, suppose I post in the United States article, an entire section about commenting about its welfare system and how it seems ironic if compared to the American dream, how it goes against the entire system of free enterprise, blah blah blah. Now, an entire section in a country article about its welfare system is already too much. A section for the entire purpose of making an observation of welfare when compared to other American concepts is even narrower....now, this is basically what the current section proposed to this article is. This article is a pretty general article, almost like a country-article, since it spans such a wide range of information. An entire section making this narrow observation (however accurate) would be disjunct and wouldn't flow, and then we would get laughs from critics and the Register if they ever decided to use this as an example against Wikipedia about the sheer pettiness and narrowness of our articles. Gibby: I think we will have less trouble, or even no trouble, if this is moved to "communist state" (and merged with existing material to cut redundancy), just see what the consensus is about that. Communist state is basically a child article about Communism, just as Maoism and Leninism is. -- Natalinasmpf 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Natalinasmpf, you raise the argument that Wikipedia would be a laughing stock.  I note that philosophy of Wikipedia is to present NPOV, to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".  In my opinion, an NPOV encyclopedia has the potential to be vastly superior to existing encyclopedias which are decidedly not NPOV.  Should the Wikipedia community take the POV that NPOV should take second place to the avoidance of ridicule?  (BostonMA 23:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What proof do you have of these interests, and then again, what exactly do you mean? --Pianohacker 23:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Gibby, I know a little about the subject, granted. I make a living from teaching-- perhaps the motive on my part for learning about the subject is rent seeking? I don't have an ideological axe to grind. If someone on Wikipedia is expressing the POV that the practice of the CPC is contrary to communist theory, I can care less. I have no idea how it affects me personally; I have no idea if it is a challenge to my political views. The substance of your arguments doesn't affect me in the slightest, personally or ideologically. I just want this particular article to stay on topic. That's it. I want to accomplish this aim with as little disruption as possible, consuming as little time as possible. I'm sorry if I'm turning out to be surprisingly dull and unsophisticated; but you will have to deal with many other editors like myself, who are less passionate about the subject matter than about striving to uphold Wikipedia's content policies. 172 23:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Communists in power and the free market

message: ------------------------------------
*POV (There is no POV I've edited it relentlessly to remove any suspected POV, offer assitance if you can (editors with major complaints have failed to do so to date).
*Original Research (this section does not constitute original research. Everything is verifiable through respected sources...which are even cited.  More can be given if needed!  Likely these people have problems with the selected sources or the person who ORIGINALY typed the section)Editors have also failed to give examples as to how this is Original Research other than to throw out this complain.  Words have meanings...and so do rules.  You cant make up stuff as you go along!
*Covered elsewhere (so is lenninism, maoism, stalinism, the soviet union are not only mentioned elsewhere each their own pages.  Market oriented reforms are barely mentioned, even when in its own page)
*SEZs are state capitalism thus already covered in the page (SEZs are not state capitalism. State capitalism is command economy, SEZs are market economies.  They are too seperate things and the SEZs and market economies of some present day "communist" countries  is not actually included in the article)
*Not relevant to communism (how is the fact that communist governments conducting market reform not relevant to communism as the ideology?  Especially since the ideologies of communism included are ideological schools that have allowed monetary systems, private property, and a few other things that defy the basics of communism)
*not enough google hits (title Free Market Communism had 178 google hits, more than some of the other section titles in the page)
Gibby
-------------------------------------
If market-oriented reforms are barley mentioned "even in its own page" then start 'in its own page.' It makes no sense to have an article on the general offering more detail on the particular than is offered on the particular in the article on the particular. 172 02:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Poor Objections to the FMC section

message: Why is it not relevant for an article on communism to note that the leading Communist party in the world adopted free market policies by creating free trade zones. The article is not really in my interest, so I won't edit it further, I just did a suggestion for a compromize. Good luck with the article. Electionworld 15:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already mentioned. ...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. This is a wiki. Readers can use the hyperlinks. Just click on Communist Party of China to find further details. 172 16:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to say much the same. It could perhaps be more precise, for example if it said China has reassessed many aspects of the Maoist legacy and has implemented considerable market reform in recent years. Laos, Vietnam, and, to a lesser degree, Cuba, have also reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth. The issue is not whether or not it should be mentioned but whether we should include a substantial and very specific section which most editors feel is outside the scope of this article. There is also the problem of the proposed section speculating about the relationship between market reforms and the theory and practice of communism. Such speculation is POV and original research. Mattley (Chattley) 16:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I have filed a request to mediate this ugly dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I doubt anyone wants to see this escalate to an ArbCom case if we can all solve this reasonably. Perhaps I am the unreasonable one, Gibby: then I beseech you to allow a mediator to handle this. -- Natalinasmpf 08:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I commend your effort. But Gibby's only seems to be getting more rude and disruptive. My expectation at the moment is that the way of making him less disruptive is taking him to arbitration. 172 08:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  mediation 

message: - Comunism - is not a political/government system
(unlike democracy, autocracy, monarchy etc. Forms_of_government ).
    - Comunism - is an economic system(opposed to Capitalism).
Since there may be democratic socialism (it would resemble Switzerland, in a way).
A communist party is a party that want to build communism, and that does not imply totalitarism(although i personally do not se any other way to create communism).
Any objections?
--JAlexoid 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comunism as a economic system 

message: Still to much focus "communist ideology", "communist parties" and "communist states", and to little about communism as a material movement. Sure, many "communists" were marxist-leninists like 60 years ago, but today they are nearly extinct. More left, council, insurrectionist and anarcho-communist perspectives in the article please. ;)
:This is not the right article for you. On one hand, Marxist-Leninist Communist parties have ruled, and continue to rule in some cases, huge countries. On the other hand, 'left, council, insurrectionist and anarcho-communist' groups only rule internet chat rooms. There is a difference in relevance here. 172 05:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Communism or communist ideology

message: Dear 172, In a previous discussion, you stated that discussion the communism article needed to be tabled until the article was unlocked. 
I did not agree that that discussion needed to be tabled for that reason, but in the interest of patience, I have waited.  The communism article is now unlocked.  More than that, you have made additions to the article .  I therefore assume that you are available to discuss the changes I suggested.  Since it is the holidays, you may only be available sporadically, but I think 72 hours is a reasonable amount of time, given the length of time I have already waited.  On the other hand, if you continue to post to wikipedia, without attempting to discuss the disputed text with me, then I will have to assume that you are no longer interested in further discussion. 
Once again, my proposed change is to replace the text that reads:
The current text reads:
:"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."
with the following text:
:"The Russian 1917 October Revolution was the first time any party with an avowedly Marxist orientation, the Bolshevik Party, obtained state power. The assumption of state power by the Bolsheviks generated by a great deal of practical and theoretical debate within the Marxist movement." 
(BostonMA 21:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be patient. Other users are proposing other changes. I mean, you just forced me into an edit conflict with a user proposing a larger change. 172 21:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: BostonMA, give me ten minutes now. I'm going out for a cigarette and more coffee. 172 21:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Which spectacle would that be? (BostonMA 10:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The entire episode with GMB. -- Natalinasmpf 13:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank-you (BostonMA 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Waiting for discussion

message: I think these catagories are appropriate, altho perhaps they are mkore suited to state communism. Thoughts? Sam Spade 09:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are not. This is the article on the ideology and the political movement. To borrow another maxim, 'ideologies don't kill people, people do.' 172 09:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By that reasoning, Hitler is not responsible for WWII deaths, just the people who followed his orders did.  After all words don't kill people.--Silverback 09:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Hitler was a living individual with agency. Communism is an abstration existing in the realm of ideas, which only have a causal effect through human agency. The categories on repression and human rights abuses belong in articles related to particular Communist regimes, not articles related to political theory or ideology. I brought up Nazism because this goes for Nazism as well as communism, regardless of how much we may or some others here dislike these particular movements. 172 10:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not always avowedly. In particular, the Soviet Union signed off on the Helsinki Accords, which signified a commitment to human rights in their official ideology, however disingenuous I'm sure that we both considered their commitment to be. Please keep these categories in articles on particular instances of political repression or instances of repression widely regarded as human rights abuses, such as Holocaust and Great Purges. 172 10:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights 

message: Well, this article barely discusses any ways to implement an economy based on communist ideology, not even things like a planned economy or a command economy, (which a gift economy would sit by side by side). Should there not be a mention somewhere in the article? The introduction perhaps isn't the right place, but somewhere in the opening might be good. -- Natalinasmpf 06:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  implementations of economics 

message: A recent edit , introduces the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" into the text.  Whatever the editor's POV, I believe that this is both accurate and improves the article as a whole.  Since an edit has been made, I would like to improve upon it.  Marx and Engels expressed their opinion that a transition period would be required between capitalism and communism (including "the lower stage of communism," i.e. socialism), and that this transition period must be a "dictatorship of the proletariat".  The current text suggests that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the same as socialism.  That is not an uncommon usage, and was certainly used in the Stalinist period.  However, it is not appropriate when referring to Marx.  Therefore, I am revising the text.  (I would have gotten to this text anyway, but since it is under active edit, I thought I'd add my input.)  -- BostonMA 23:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  dictatorship of the proletariat 

message: The current text reads:
:According to Marxism, this process may be initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie,   then passes through a transitional state period known as the dictatorship of the proletariat as advocated by Leninism.
The prior text  read:
:According to Marxism, this process may be initiated by the revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie, then passes through a transitional state period known as the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Both versions begin with the statement "According to Marxism", but the current version, in addition says "as advocated by Leninism".  I think the "as advocated by Leninism" is redundant, unless one wants to take the view that Leninism deviates from Marxism on this question, and it makes the sentence very ackward.  --BostonMA 00:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remention Leninism? 

message: Ultramarine, you removed the following text: 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.  The text that you removed is an important summary in development in Western academic Soviet study literature from the 1960s to the 1980s, specifically the shift in perspectives for understanding Soviet politics from the "totalitarian model" to various other models such as "bureaucratic pluralism," "institutional pluralism," "bureaucratic authoritarianism," and "post-totalitarianism." For an early influential early critique of the totalitarian model, see H. Gordon Skilling, "Interest Groups and Communist Politics," World Politics, Volume 18, Number 3, April 1966, pp.435-451. Other critiques of the "totalitarian model" followed, questioning the applicability of the concept of totalitarianism to the post-Stalin period; some even questioned the applicability to the 1930s, though I personally thought that some of those critiques went too far. This attempt to was led by Arch Getty in his Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered: 1933-1938, (Cambridge University Press, 1985). Ultramarine, the passage you removed was one of the few brief summaries of the relevant academic literature on Communist politics found in the article. Please do not remove the text again. 172 08:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove until you cite sources in the article like everybody else is expected in Wikipedia. Talk page claims are uninteresting. Ultramarine 08:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to take the time to remove it, take the time to insert the footnote, which I essentially gave you above. 172 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your claim, you give sources. I will give you some time to cite sources before removing it. Ultramarine 08:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did cite sources. I mean no disrespect, but let me know if you have a hard time understanding English. 172 08:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, cite sources in the article, not in discussion pages. You like everybody else is expected to follow Wikipedia policy. Again, I will give you a short time to cite sources before removing the text. Ultramarine 08:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, you could say, "please insert a footnote." If you try being nice you may find that you may get your way more often. 172 08:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, you could avoid saying "let me know if you have a hard time understanding English". Ultramarine 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mean that as an insult. I simply wanted to know if it would help for me to rewrite my initial statement and make it easier to understand. 172 08:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine

message: Communism never became a popular ideology in the United States, either before or after the establishment of the Communist Party USA in 1919.   ...What point is there in simply mentioning that there was a communist party in america?  A lot happened in this time period.  Simply saying "there was a communist party in US" was very poor writing.  This should either explain why in at least *some* detail or just not elaborate at all.
Communism never became a popular or even accepted ideology in the United States. ...This is clear and it has meaning.  An explanation isn't needed at all, if the reader wants to learn why they know very well how to research it.--So Hungry 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... Altough saying "never became a popular ideology" is not accurate.  this is difficult to accurately sum up in even a few sentances... let alone 1 phrase... I'm thinking that maybe this should just be a simple "Communism never became a popular nor accepted ideology in the United States.--So Hungry 00:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk 

message: There are no images in this article. I suppose we need some. I guess this is why this article seems to be run-down, anyway. -- Natalinasmpf 04:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: I've converted what we pathetically have for references to footnotes, including splitting a footnote into two as they cited two different books. I however, need the ISBN number for this particular reference: "Interest Groups and Communist Politics." World Politics, Volume 18, Number 3, 435-451 - is there one, or some sort of standard that this is referred by, because it would be preferable. -- Natalinasmpf 05:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN number 

message: The existing text states:
: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 assertion that the Bolsheviks found themselves without a program (with qualifications) is an opinion.  As such, if it is to remain, it needs to be attributed to someone.  If there is an editor who believes this statement is important to the article, please provide a source, so that it may be re-written as "According to X, the Bolsheviks found themselves" or something similar.  If no sources are provided within 48 hours, or a request made for time to obtain such sources, I will edit the line to something like:
:The Bolsheviks successful rise to power was based upon the slogans "peace, bread, and land" and "All power to the Soviets", slogans which tapped the massive public desire for an end to Russian involvement in the First World War, the peasants' demand for land reform, and popular support for the Soviets.
Alternative suggestions for text are welcome.  --BostonMA 18:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say they didn't have a clear economic policy until the implementation of war communism?  Would it not also be POV to say that the program of the Bolsheviks was vague or abstract?  Compared to what?  If you are interested in this section, perhaps you could clarify for me what you mean by vauge or abstract.  --BostonMA 21:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They only had a campaign agenda before war communism, IIRC, they didn't immediately start on a planned economy or a command economy until they implemented war communism. I suppose before the implementation of war communism one could call it "all talk, no action". -- Natalinasmpf 00:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "all talk, no action" seems to me to be original research.  You are welcome to search for a verifiable source supporting the idea that the Bolsheviks' actions were sluggish in comparison to their rhetoric in the period between the October Revolution and the civil war.  However, I would very much believe that such a source would be highly POV.  Another POV would point out that the Bolsheviks urged, in their own words, caution, avoiding a headlong rush, order, measured steps etc. .  Now a critic might argue that the measures that the Bolsheviks did call for were in fact a headlong rush.  However, the phrase "all talk, no action" suggests that the Bolsheviks avoided taking measures for which they had been calling when they were able to take action upon such.  A reasonable question to ask is which measures those might be?  --BostonMA 01:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well for one, what economic changes did the Bolsheviks make after the October Revolution before war communism? Nearly none, they left it as status quo (political-wise however, it was much different: they dissolved the Duma, etc.) So clearly, they didn't formulate an economic policy, not even any kind of central planning, until war communism. That is to say, war communism was their first non-trivial economic change. -- Natalinasmpf 06:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for delaying responding to you.  I would be happy to give you another 24 hours to find verifiable sources if you wish to use that time.  One person's "no economic changes" happens to be another persons "draconian inroads into the rights of private property".  If the Bolhseviks had done nothing else during the period in question, they decreed that all landed estates should be seized by peasant committees.  Much of heavy industry and transport was also either seized or voluntarily nationalized during this period.  I do not know what percentage that was, and I am fully aware that a very large number of smaller enterprises were not nationalized until the civil war.  If you would like to make the point that anarchists have criticized the Bolhseviks for the pace of expropriations, I have no objections, although I'm not sure this paragraph is the best place for it.  However, I would still ask for verifiable sources.  --BostonMA 22:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since sources have not been provided, I am making the changes per above.  --BostonMA 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion requires attribution -- "the Bolsheviks found themselves without a program..." 

message: In 2005, there began to be the first serious talk in the United States of erecting a Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, DC. Despite the historic anti-communism of that country, it is unclear whether such a monument would ever be allowed to remain in existence over the long term.
I think this is an inappropriate addition to the page -- and unsourced. As such I have put it here pending both consensus to include it and a source. If you are the one who keeps adding it, please mention here why you think that it is vital that it is included. - FrancisTyers 16:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is an inappropriate addition. There are plenty of memorials to victims of communism in countries where it's rather more relevant than in the US. And it's not Wikipedia's job to rally adherents to political causes. Palmiro | Talk 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please take this content to anti-communism. If this article were to mention every similar condemnation of communism, it would be thousands of pages long. The mention of the memorial in Washington is out of the scope of this article. 172 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorial

message: This needs to be discussed first. I suggest he look at Wikipedia:summary. This is going to incite another dispute again. -- Natalinasmpf 05:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibby, again 

message: To date no logically consistent argument has been made as to why this section should not be included.  Arguments made so far have been proven inadequate because those same arguments can be made against the article as it currently stands, and thus, should be subject to the same deletion as the following section has.
===Market Reforms of the Modern Communist===
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 . 	
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." 
Several other self proclaimed communist countries have also made pro market reforms in the last few decades including Vietnam.
-----------
Discussing anything with you guys has proved worthless. You have shown little evidence of logical consistancy with your arguements and even less evidence that you are actually willing to work with anyone but yourselves.
(Gibby 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. 172 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TO BE INCLUDED

message: 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 . 	
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." 
Several other self proclaimed communist countries have also made pro market reforms in the last few decades including Vietnam.
-----------
Discussing anything with you guys has proved worthless. You have shown little evidence of logical consistancy with your arguements and even less evidence that you are actually willing to work with anyone but yourselves.
(Gibby 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. 172 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Market Reforms of the Modern Communist

message: There are several areas that need to be seriously edited.
First we talk about communism in general with spattered refrences to the soviet union, marxism, lennin and stalin, then we go into a section on the soviet union which has more of the same, then sections on marxism and even stalinism which have by now been covered twice already.  We finish with a section on communism today which is primarily about soviet russia post stalin including a sentence on marxist revolutionaries (Who as of this time and place are of little signifigance) but despite all this redundancy and poor organization there is still heavy resistance to a small non redundant section on market reforms by communist countries.
what gives?  (Gibby 06:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redundancy

message: As of now Gibby has made four reverts and five attempts to reinsert his personal essay on Chinese market reforms against consensus. 1 2 3 4 It is clear that he still has not decided to be any less disruptive and respectful of consensus. 172 06:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. If that thought makes you happy, by all means, believe it. 172 06:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I couldn't have stated a better reply myself. 172 08:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Whatever problems there are with this article, the consensus is that your section is not going to help. Please give it a rest. 172 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gibby 3RR

message: I have tagged Gibby's section with the POV-section tag because it asserts Russia is a communist country. It is not, among several other NPOV violations. It is currently not the ruling party in any case, which clearly distinguishes it as a non-communist state. Although I think it will eventually be deleted, here it remains tagged for now. -- Natalinasmpf 07:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-section 

message: Discussion on clean up and NPOV.
I beleive that the redudant sections in this page and sections that go beyond the breadth of communisism (While covered elsewhere) lend to a POV given that certain other information is purposfully deleted.
:Your essay on "free market communism" keeps getting purposfully deleted by consensus because "free market communism" is not an ideological banner within communism such as Stalinism or Maoism. This article is for describing the ideology and political movement, making reference to economic policies of communist really only to guide readers to the related entries. This is not a legitimate NPOV dispute. Please stop inserting the tag. 172 08:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You write that Gibby's edits are deleted by consensus.  I do not believe there is consensus on this matter.  Quite the opposite.  I believe there is an active dispute.  Now consensus may not always be reached, and in that case Wikipedia operates by super-majority.  However, I believe it is inappropriate to refer to the current situation as one in which there is a consensus.
Everything is ideological!!!  And its not the title you are upset about its the facts.  The fact is communist governments have resorted to market reforms, this is the final evolution (perhaps forever perhaps so far, i'm not saying) but you have provided basic communist principles, communist evolutions to Lennin, Stalin, Mao, the later Soviet Union...EVEN PERISTROIKA!!!! (btw, that was an economic program) FOR GOD SAKE, you have no consistancy with your complaints, you include all these economic programs and diversions from communisms originally accepted theory but refuse to take the one that is the furthest from that origin...the only one that stands in complete contrast to all others (for good reason but thats beside the point).  The point is, if everything else stays, so does that section.
Your refusal to allow it, while allowing all others is proof that a certain POV exists in this page. (Gibby 08:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, there is not need to rant. Chill out. Of course I am familiar with Road to Serfdom. I've even assigned it a number of times over the years to students. The issue that a number of other editors and I have with you is your style. You are stating outright in the article that "history has proved Hayek right." Whether or not that claim is correct is not the issue. Wikipedia has no business asserting that "history" has "proved" any individual author correct. Wikipedia can cite what certain authors have stated about Hayek's work in their reviews; but Wikipedia cannot on its own authority speak on behalf of "history" because of the NPOV policy. And if I didn't reply to some of your other remarks, please reformulate them more calmly next time. It's hard to respond to so much shouting at once.  172 08:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No, but it is indeed the case that I do not want to work with anyone who disregards the NPOV policy. You can say, with citations, that publications by the Wall Street Journal, Heritage Foundation, or Fraiser Institute have claimed that the data that they have gathered vindicate Hayek. But Wikipedia does not recognize you as an oracle speaking on behalf of history. You can make a statement asseting that "history has proven X right about Y" in an argumentative essay, but not in an NPOV encyclopedia. 172 08:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen all of it. In the article you are going to have to attribute specific conclusions to specific articles and authors. You can report, e.g., a "report by the Heritage Foundation by X found Y" and insert an online link to an article as an inline citation, or a footnote. I am not interested in challenging you ideologically. I am just interested in getting you to learn how to write in a manner appropriate for Wikipedia, which is going to be much different from the style that is suited for an argumentative essay. 172 09:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: These websites do not directly discuss the relationship between economic and personal freedom.  If you (Gibby), wish to include information on this subject, please give a suitable reference that directly states the information you are trying to add.  The relationship is not so clear that it can be stated without qualification.  Singapore, scores highly in these economic freedom indices, but has a horrible political and civil liberties record.  It may be an outlier, but, its an example of why the relationship between economic and personal freedoms is not indisputable.  Thus, any statement about the relationship in Wikipedia should be referenced and stated carefully.--Bkwillwm 18:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Gibby, please remain civil and refrain from making personal attacks. There is no need to compare 172 and Natalina with thugs. I suggest you take some time to calm down before replying again. - FrancisTyers 16:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you feel you are being targetted I suggest you take it through the proper channels and refrain from making personal attacks, as personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy. I have not seen either 172 or Natalina abuse the rules on this page. 172 has made several helpful suggestions. If you are getting frustrated, take some time to relax and then come back. Please don't try and escalate the problem. :) - FrancisTyers 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I believe that the communism article does not satisfy NPOV, and has not done so for a long time.  I would like to add an NPOV tag, because I think it is approporiate to warn readers that the contents of the page are disputed.  If an editor believes that such a tag should not be added, please make the arguments here, directly below this comment.  If I don't see any arguments within 48 hours, then I will add the NPOV tag.  --BostonMA 14:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. NPOV tags on controversial articles such as this one (see the template above) have the tendency to turn talk pages into brawls, exactly the wrong kind of environment for discussing the kinds of subtle, nuanced concerns that you have been raising. 172 20:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give two or three examples of where you felt that brawling became more intense after an NPOV template was added?  Could you explain why you think the intensification of the brawling was due to the NPOV tag, rather than both being caused by third factor?  Thanks --BostonMA 20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I must admit that I haven't been following the detailed discussions here fully, but I'm a bit surprised by the NPOV marker too. I'm inclined to second 172's remarks. I was also of the impression that the problems people - other than the free market communist - had with the page were fairly subtle questions of how accurate it was, which isn't exactly the same thing as an NPOV dispute. But I could easily be missing something. Palmiro | Talk 20:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be willing to stipulate that if (and only when) there are good faith disputes about NPOV that NPOV tags would be appropriate?  That is, can we take the argument that it invites brawling off the table? --BostonMA 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, missed that. As far as I'm concerned, yes. Palmiro | Talk 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: NPOV tag is needed for far more reasons than the free market communist sections constant deletion.  BostonMA has made many attempts to explain this.  The tag is necessary and I also believe a cleanup tag is also necessary to make this article flow better and more logically. (Gibby 08:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless there's a specific, ongoing dispute among editors of this article about POV, the tag probably shouldn't be added. At least, that's how we've handled things in my experience, on George W. Bush, for instance. I'll have to disagree with 172, though; typically, the tag is a symptom, not a cause, of a talk-page brawl.  is a useful template for tagging particular sections as POV. That should also only be used when there is an ongoing dispute, but since it narrowly affects only part of the article, but sometimes it's a good way to get things going. android79 20:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that NPOV tag should only be present during a dispute.  I have several concerns however.  My first concern is not to encourage edit warring by requiring such acrimony as evidence that a neutrality dispute is "active".  My second concern is that what appears to one party to be an NPOV dispute, may appear to another party as a dispute about stylistic or other concerns.  I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.  --BostonMA 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: there is a dispute and there has been for some time.  The [epithet deleted --BostonMA 20:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? We're willing to work with complaints and to make adjustments. We don't act unilaterally. However, Gibby has, and we wish things to be discussed first before any changes are made. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Tag 

message: The current text reads:
:For example, contrary to communist theory as it developed, the Communist-ruled People's Republic of China runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control.
This is suspected as original research, because it makes a claim regarding the consistency or lack thereof of certain actions with regard to communist theory.  Who determined whether the actions in question are consistent with communist theory?  An editor or a verifiable source?  If this is the conclusion of the editor, then it is original research.  It is wikipedia policy to have no original research.  Therefore a request is hereby made for verifiable sources.  If no verifiable sources are provided within 48 hours, or a request made for time to procure such sources, I will delete the phrase:
:"contrary to communist theory as it developed"
--BostonMA 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall making pretty much the same point three weeks ago when this whole business of "free trade communism" first cropped up. In fact, I did. Here  - and here and even more explicitly here  - and recapitulated the point in this edit where I note that a particular edit "claims that Free Trade Zones in China contradict communism as a theory. I have pointed out continually that this asserts the POV that China does indeed practise communism. It does not report a POV, but asserts one." . Also made the same point here  and here . Mattley (Chattley) 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I added in "self described communists" as part of the editing process to appease your nit pickity excuses for deletion...afterall communist ruled China did not satisfy you either.  It just appears you alternate definitions of communism to suite your agenda (Gibby 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Gibby.  The only thing I want to remove is the phrase "contrary to communist theory as it developed".  It may be, as you believe, a factual statement, and it may be the case, as you believe, that if one bothers to follow the logical steps to get there one will recognize its veracity.  However, the standard for Wikipedia is that articles should not contain "original research" and following logical steps to get there is something, perhaps the main thing, that constitutes original research.  The standard for Wikipedia articles is not "truth" but "verifiability".  That is why a phrase such as that needs to have a verifiable source -- and if the verifiable source is potentially biased or dubious, the phrase should be explicitly attributed, as in "according to Jane Smith, it is contrary to communist theory...".  I have no problems with the section on market oriented reforms, and no desire to remove them.  If you think I am not applying the guidelines fairly, let me know. --BostonMA 14:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What you seem to be calling "meaningless nit pickity accusations and complaints" is an attempt to follow Wikipedia:No original research. If you don't like it, you have the prerogative to leave Wikipedia and join and online forum where you can more effectively express your point of view. 172 08:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you have agreed to the removal of the phrase, and since no other editor has come forward with verifiable sources, I am removing the phrase. --BostonMA 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that it has already been removed . Never mind.--BostonMA 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected Original Research, "For example, contrary to communist theory as it developed,..." 

message: I would like those on all three sides of the dispute to list their reasons (with examples and details) for their point of view to list them here. This is so that anyone reading this discussion can get a view of each side's arguments. Please do not add comments under points of view different from your own, as this as intended as clarification, not a argument starter. --Pianohacker (Talk) 01:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for including/compromising on/not including Gibby's section

message: (I think this is what we have now, but the dispute is still ongoing, so... --Pianohacker (Talk))
#Agree, somewhere as it is now, but with an addition of contradiction with communist theory (which is self-evident. Electionworld 10:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for including a shortened version of the section

message: [Comments stuck out by me. 172 02:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for not including the section

message: Looking at the page, there is an important ommission of Restif de la Bretonne and the origin of self-described communists in the French revolution (see http://library.thinkquest.org/13831/communis.html). I think the approach on this page is good and that certain key points should be highlighted - The publication of the Communist Manifesto and the Paris Commune. The latter I think is of exceptional importance - giving substance to Commune-ism - and of greater importance than the subsequent Bolshevik coup in Russia. Further, it is important to show how the tensions in social democracy led to the collapse of socialist internationalism at the onset of the First World War - and how opposition to the war united the various communist groups - Bolsheviks, Bordiguists, Council Communists drawing in masses of workers - even if the aspirations of the Russian Revolution were never realised. 
The participants thought the end of capitalism was 'nigh', a position they had to modify following successive defeats in Germany, Seattle and the collapse of the world rervolution they had envisioned. Soviet Marxism then emerges as a way of coping with managing a "socialist" economy following this collapse. The communist parties which subsequently emerged have quite a different nature from earlier communist formations, whatever value people might care to give either. What do people think?82.133.121.107 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restif de la Bretonne

message: The following phrase appears in the new section "Differing philosophies on the nature of property"
:"the philosophy of communists who assert that private property are forms of theft..."
When the phrase occured in the context of "criticisms of communism", it was conceivable that the phrase was meant to be attributed to one or another of the critics mentioned.  In the current context, the phrase gives the impression that communists in general hold that property is theft.    Who determined whether communists (in general) hold that property is theft?  A verifiable source or an editor?
Unless a verifiable source is provided within 48 hours, or a request made for time to obtain such a source, I will remove the phrase in question.
Although the issue is verifiablity rather than factuality, I will point out that the notion that property is theft is found in the writings of the Anarchist Proudhon, which were sharply criticized by Marx in "The poverty of philosophy".  --BostonMA 17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was to pair with Gibby's edits, as one of his additions asserted that communists were against property rights, as opposed to the nature of private property in itself. I'll find a way to remedy it, because I think Hayek is simply criticising one implementation of communism (as opposed to a gift economy), as much as he targets the general nature of it. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 17:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected Original Research -- "the philosophy of communists who assert that private property are forms of theft..." 

message: There appears to be an on-going discussion on this talk page regarding the virtues or failings of one another form of social organization.  While such discussions are natural and sometimes very productive, they may also clutter this talk page.  Let us suppose the optimal, and that one of the parties convinces the other.  Perhaps editor #1 becomes a libertarian, or alternatively, editor #2 becomes an anarcho-communist.  Would that in any way affect how the Communism article ought to be written?  I tend not to think so.  My request is that editors, while they are editting this talk page, stay focused on issues that will have an impact on the content of the article.  Please take other discussions, regardless of how intrinsicly important they may be, to a more appropriate forum.  Thank-you.  --BostonMA 21:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, KDRGibby did initiate the entire discussion.. I know how childish that sounds, but I'm the one being put on the defensive. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You and KDRGibby might be interested in the discussions at Yahoo Groups' WSM_Forum. To get you started, Here's something picked at random about gift economies (among other things) from a few years back. If you do a search for the economic calculation argument (or ECA), you'll find an in-depth discussion of production in a socialist society by the same author. -Hydrostatic 07:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The purpose of an article talk page 

message: I added a section with this name, currently it is very short. Feel free to expand/correct.
Note that famous anti-utopias like "1984" should not go there, as they don't call the depicted society communist.  
Crocodealer 07:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communism in fiction 

message: I've removed the recent additions asserting number of deaths by communism. The highly controversial figure is better discussed in the criticism of communism article. The figure inserted was by the historian Rummel, known for arriving at higher figures than anyone else, see for example and the criticism page. Jens Nielsen 10:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deaths 

message: The box on the right hand side, which contains links to other wikipedia articles, has a section called 'Communist States'. 
Should the Soviet Union be included in it? The other states mentioned are still communist, with none of the other defunct Asian, African and European communist states mentioned. So then why is the USSR there?
Perhaps it should be put in a new 'Defunct Communist States' section, along with the other now non-communist countries (Like Poland, Czechoslovakia, ETC)? PJB 17:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The internal links box  

message: I believe it's not true any more.
Xx236 10:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to a lesser degree, Cuba have reduced state control of the economy in order to stimulate growth 

message: I had recently added Earliest Communism but forgot to log in im just metntioning that this 
is not a 100% fact that I know becuse I had heard a teacher metnion it so im going by my knowlege
and what I had heard PLEASE change any mistakes in it. Thanks Helblazer112.
:Hi Helblazer112. I've moved your comments to the bottom of the page as discussion pages on wikipedia read down rather than up. The communism you are referring to is often referred to as Primitive communism. There is an article on that, so we only need to have a summary here (and some editors might say we don't need that). Perhaps you want to have a look at the other article and use it to reword your addition here. Mattley (Chattley) 18:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition

message: Anarchist communism was creat by Kropotkin.He was an anarchist, not communist.His anarchist and communalist ideas are part of the world of anarchism.
Anarchists are not communists. And it is not a school of communism.
Long ago there was a split in the workers movement, between the socialists, in communists and anarchists.    
(sorry, because my bad english)--82.83.77.140 16:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. But that was a schism between the Marxists and the anarchists; before the schism communism and anarchism were the economic and political theories of the same society. Therefore, anarchist communism is certainly not a "school of Marxism". Neither is Christian communism. Christian communists and Christian anarchists were never involved in a schism either (although the latter tends to be more radical in proscription). Therefore really there cannot be said that communist anarchism isn't a school of communism, because there are plenty of schools of communism that did not arise out of the schism. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but communism advocates a stateless society, literally one of "communes". Anarchist communism especially stresses the community element of anarchism, and hence it is a school of communism. Even after the schism, as an anarchist school it can be considered part as the school of communism: the concept of communism did not arise from the schism, it arose from the Greeks. The concept of anarchism also arose from the Greeks; they considered them distinctive, though it was common for philosophers to write about systems espousing both. So, it is not a school of post-schism communism, but it remains a school of communism nonetheless. The idea of socialism really arose only much much later. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but just because Marxists called themselves the communists, didn't mean communists are Marxists or that Marxists are communists. In effect, this article describes "communism", with a heavy emphasis on Marx because it has the most impact, but allowing plenty of other ideologies to be defined under it as a "school", because Marx-centrism can't claim everything. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but there are communists who are anarchists. "Communalism" is really just a euphemism. It was a communist school of thought in the purest sense; it was the most schismatic of the schools, but it was a school of communism nonetheless. It doesn't matter that Weitling, Marx, etc. were all communists and weren't anarchists, that still doesn't make Kropotkin not a communist. People might use "communalist" to clarify any misconceptions (because there exist people who don't know the difference and non-Marxist communists might want to avoid giving them a lecture)....and besides, Kropotkin's anarchist communism was a radical idea; it was not "merely" communalist. It doesn't matter that the rest were communists, anarchist communism is still a school of communism. The only reason that people wouldn't call it a school of communism is to avoid the non-anarchist tendencies of the other schools, or to avoid associating with the other schools, but that would not make anarchist communism not a school of communism. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 06:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We don't have an article on "antiauthority socialism" as I said. Communalism is used in political science, but communism can be considered a branch of the communalist (as well as communitarianist) philosophy, just most radical. Communism is effectively the most radical of the socialist philosophies, and anarchism is effectively the most radical of the libertarian philosophy. It would thus make sense for "anarchist communism" to fall under both being communist, and libertarian, even though he never called himself a libertarian. Council communism, as you notice, is both a school of communism and a school of anarchism. Noam Chomsky also recognises this (in conjunction with anarcho-syndicalism). This clearly establishes the fact that anarchist communism can be considered a school of communism. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: They're not the same in the sense they have different emphases, and that you have anarcho-capitalism, etc. (which some people think is an oxymoron, and some don't), anarchist communism explicitly states both anarchist and communist principles, because previously, the approach to communism did not explicitly state whether a transitionary period was permissible or not, or in anarchism, whether leftism is the way to go. Hence. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchist communism as a school of... or not 

message: "However, Marx and Engels argued that communism would not emerge from capitalism in a fully developed state, but would pass through a "first phase" in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. The "first phase" would eventually give way to a higher phase in which class differences were eliminated, and a state was no longer needed. Lenin frequently used the term "socialism" to refer to Marx and Engels' supposed "first phase" of communism and used the term "communism" interchangably with Marx and Engels' "higher phase" of communism."
This is wrong. There is no state in Marx' "first phase of communism". And it's actually quite far from Lenin's perception of "socialism". 
For Lenin, the first phase of communism (which he calls socialism) means that the working class takes power over the existing process of production through a [workers-) state. 
For Marx the first phase of communism is something completly different. For Marx, this phase is identical to the free association of producers, the abolition of the divsion between producers and means of production, teh abolition of the property relations as such. 
For Marx there is no such thing as a communist stage with a state, commodity production or wage labour. 
"To this day there has been a split in the workers movement between Marxist 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"
Where is the difference? Marx did not believe in a state (have you guys only read the manifesto? One of his earliest and least good texts...), that is quite clear in his later works on the Paris commune and his later prefaces to the manifesto. 
And Marx also believed in capitalism - revolution - communism. Not some capitalism - revolution - socialism - communism crap. Sure, there is a "transitional phase", but it's called revolution and nothing else. 
But large parts of article as a whole is not very good at all. I think we should delete or move most of it and rewrite it from scratch. The article on liberalism is a good model. 90% of that article is not covered with information about liberal state, it is largly about liberalism ideology and liberal history of ideas. The communism article should be modeled in a similar way. You know, there is an article on communist states, why not put most of it there, and just keep about one chapter on the subject in the communim article? But most important of all, let the different chapters be written by people who know what they are talking about, instead of little school boys who have read the Manifesto, a school book or maybe a book by Karl Popper and then think that they know everything on the subject.
:Marx viewed the state a product of class divisions, nothing more and nothing less. Indeed we need simply glance at the Manifesto to see that it is "merely the instrument of one class for oppressing another". To Marx there is nothing inherently wrong with this as a proletarian state could perform the function of oppressing the bourgeoisie. This is where he and the anarchists differed, the latter believing that the state plays some role in perpetuating class divisions and whose abolishment was key GreatGodOm 19:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrongs in the marxism chapter