Talk:Communism/Archive 4

message: The stuff about the native american Means dosen't belong where it is.  Needs to be moved and contextualized, if it belongs in the article at all, to the section on critiques.  The thing with Etiene Cabet is factually wrong.  He was not the first to use the term, although he was a communist utopian, and he certainly didn't propound the 'theory of communism' as is inferred in the entry.  He did write about communism, and termed it such, but was not the first or the most influential by any means.  It deserves referrence but i think earlier nominal communists like Babeuf also deserve mention.  There is pretty much a line of continuity between the communists and socialists who fought (and for a time controlled)in the French Revolution of the 18th century, and 19th and 20th century communists and socialists.  
Capone69.111.18.60 21:55, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some things to Fix 

message: Those who took it upon themselves to put a protection on this page without discussing it here in the discussion area have a responsibility to mitigate the costs of putting it on protection.  They need to act promptly and make a serious effort to resolve these problems by taking the time NOW to engage in a meaningfull dialogue about the future of this page.  There are serious problems with the page as it currently exists and now we are "frozen" with this version until further notice.  A prolonged dispute tag on a page is contrary to wiki.
Capone68.123.238.128 02:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any notice here about the terms and time limits of protection, nor the moment and reason of protection. It will be removed in 24 hours and the article split into manageable pieces, so that other people could do something useful somewhere. Mikkalai 05:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolving Disputes 

message: I fully understand and appreciate the work on the series of communism articles, because the current wikipedia content presents a distorted and childish view of the topic. However this anomalously long template consumes huge space on the page and decreases the readability of the article. Please use the instrument of categories to keep track of articles related to the same topic: this is one of the main reasons of introduction of categoies. Please notice that the category pages themselves may contain significant explanatory text; see, e.g.,  :Category:Communism. What is more, you can set a temporary, work catgory, specifically for the purposes of ongoing develpmnent, e.g., :Category:Communism articles: work in progress. Mikkalai 03:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the template should be formatted better so that the text will not be forced beneath it. But categories are not adequate for what we are doing. Please discuss any concerns with User:Oceanhahn, who is the designer of the template. Shorne 04:09, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Your work should not hinder the readability of the article. Please find a better representation of your table, if you really need it. As of now, I have to scroll two screens until I get to the actual text of the article. Your link to the discussion in red, i.e., wrong. Mikkalai 04:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your concern. Please mention it to Oceanhahn. Sorry about the link. It should be Talk:Communist Ideology. (Really, the capital I should be changed to lower case.) Shorne 04:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, any discussion of theoretical topics in economy, politics, etc., are inherently discussions of POVs. This is not like the description of, say, colors of frogs in middle Amazon basin. Any theory is POV and must be attributed to a particular POV, rather than stated as an absolute truth.  Mikkalai 04:19, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Communism 

message: ::You didn't attribute your statements. They might go better under "Criticism". Shorne 04:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are my statements about real life. Please prove that they are wrong or irrelevant. And they are in the "Criticism" section. And by the way, actually they happen to be in line with Marxism, hence they are not really "criticism" of communism. It is absurd to think that if Marx were alive he would not take new important developments of world economy and society into an account. Mikkalai 04:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Marx would take developments into account. That doesn't mean that he would agree with you. And your or my private opinions are not necessarily good material for an encyclopædia. Shorne 05:05, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you happen to know the difference between the words "statement" and "opinion"? Mikkalai 07:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: "And you are right, too, Moishe", an old Jewish joke says. But did you happen to see the statements in question? (1) Capitalism proved to be flexible (i.e., capable to evolve): true or false? (2) Technological revolution changed the character of labor: true or false? (3) Bureaucratization of economic relations in socialt countries: (as early as Lenin warned about this danger): true or false? Mikkalai 08:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I did happen to see them, unlike some people who haunt this area, I happen to have some knowledge in this area.  In reference to statement "1", Marx never claimed that capitalism was inflexible, but rather saw that it was a socio-economnic system, which, like others before it, was based upon class relations within a given level of techno-economic relations.  He did not set out to prove that capitalism was inflexible per se and never set out a time-table as such which said that capitalism would end at such and such date in time.  So while it is true that capitalism has evolved in time, it is something of a straw-man to frame this statement within the context of saying that Marx said something to the contrary.  In fact, Marx agreed with the notion of economic systems being capable of evolving.  This even forms one of the bases of his whole outlook.  While it is a precarious and dangerous course to compare biological evolution to social evolution, there arises a similar contradiction in taxonomy.  While capitalism has evolved, it is difficult to determine if Marx or capitalists during his time would call the present system "capitalism", if one applied a rigorous or historically specific definition to that term.  Of course, one could go the other way with the definition, and through generalizing such a term enough, one could easily arrive at the conclusion that "capitalism" has always existed!  An overly specific or idealistic definition would lead us to say that "capitalism" has never existed!  The rise of state-capitalism, corporatism, monopolism, and Keynesian economics in the 20th century, have allowed us to maintain a working model for a system which may or may not properly be called capitalism.  This ties directly to point "2", since in fact the concept that technological changes are one of the bases on which history itself changes or moves along or  mutates, evolves or what have you, is a Marxist concept.  As to point "3", no, Lenin did not warn of economic bureaucratization of the production process.  He warned of political bureaucratization of the political process, often now referred to as "Stalinism".  Of course this all begs the question "what is bureaucracy", what is bureaucratism, and why in "our" (western?) culture to we attach a negative connotation to the term when the term denotes something neutral? Capone 69.111.72.154 19:18, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I think the common sense approach to wiki, if there can be said to be one, is that YES, every statement MUST BE ATTRIBUTED which is challenged by another wikipedian.  If it cannot withstand the "scrutiny" of something as simple as attribution, then it most certainly does not belong in a wiki, or any other, entry. --Capone69.111.72.154 19:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "attribute your statements" 

message: I have looked at the recent edit war and have not reverted. Not because I disagree with the information "my side" is advancing but because I have become uncertain as what this article ought to be about. Communism is an ancient idea with roots in traditional cultural practices. Due to the adoption of "communism"  by Marx and its continued use by communist parties the idea has become wedded to Marx's ideology and to the practices of Marxist-Lenist states. But they have their own articles. How should we organize this article to deal in a general way with all of this? My suggestion, set out above is to have sections on Marxist, Marxism-Leninism and the Communist state consisting of brief introductions regarding these areas with links to them. For this article to be part of the communism series is also dubious as that project seems to not be about communism but limited to modern Marxist-Leninist thought, political parties and governments. The inclusion of the logo is also a problem, as there is no general logo of all communist parties and would not at all represent the content of the article if it were about communism rather than about Marxism-Leninism. Fred Bauder 15:27, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
::These are important questions. You'll find a discussion of them at Talk:Communist Ideology. I invite you to contribute if you have any suggestions. This and related articles (such as Communist state) are chaotic, with everything from Plato to Ceauşescu's executioners thrown in. Much better organisation is needed. Shorne 16:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea may be ancient, but the word is not. The term "Communism" as a mutation of the word "communal", "community" appeared not before the second half of 19th century. Please don't forget that our worldview depends on the words we use to describe it. To call primitive societies "communism" is the same as to call an ant "animal": it is true, but hides tremendous differences. For starters, how about slaves; not only in primitive societies, but in Utopia as well, not to say about Plato's? Let's face it: Marx put the word into wide usage, and it is his invention to apply the term to troglodytes to justify his theory. From whatever side you look at it, Communism is Marxism (plus extras; but again, any theory evolves from its roots).  Mikkalai 16:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that Plato's Republic as a communist model is an argument, not a matter of fact.  Plato never refered to it as communism, and most communists, most but perhaps the most of the unreconstructed neo-stalinists, would never even recognize the republic as communistic.  My education tells me that Leo Strauss in his book "The City and Man", from the Chicago school of political science, was first and most prominent to make the plato-communism connection, and so all I would want to do is ATTRIBUTE that statement to Leo Strauss since that's the scholarly or academic thing to do. -Capone69.111.72.154 19:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I am saying. Starting from Marx himself, people apply the word "communistic" to whatever they feel like. One should carefully distinguish the notions of "communism", "elements of communism" and layman's usage, kind of, "bloody communism". Mikkalai 01:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The topic of this article

message: As previously discussed in the talk area, criticisms we all agreed belong in the criticisms section and must be attributed (As well as statements in other sections).-Capone69.111.72.154 19:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving Criticisms to Criticism Section

message: What is an "own population"?  A population in biology is a group within a given species which often interbreed due to geographical factors.  Are we talking then of geographical proximity?  Or are you applying legal standards, such as citizenship?  If this is the case, well, Hitler stripped the jews of legal citizenship before offing them, so I suppose he's not so bad since he didn't kill millions of his own people.  They were just ridding Germany of Zionist colonialism, you see, it was an independence movement.  There is no evidence that the USSR or China murdered millions of their own people.  Where is it?  There was one book, the black book of communism, which was debunked as totally unscientific.  Even people who helped collaborate with the sections in it, disagree with the method used by the editor.  There are several sections in the archives about that here.
Native Americans were not citizens, were not even considered part of the human race, a subhuman species of less-than-white people.  I suppose the fact that they often interbred with whites and black slaves (oh lordy is that a whole other issue) makes them part of the population in social and scientific terms.-Capone 20:48, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool down here. This could be an infortunate wording, but the idea was to exclude killing during wars; e.g., to exclude the fact that during the WWII Germany killed probably more Russians that Stalin during Great Purge. Also, Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings alone give pretty nice figure as well, for the case if someone decides to write an article about who keeps the highest "kill density" score it terms of "heads per day". 21:02, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you getting this, The National Enquirer?  WHAT mass graves do they keep finding that would substantiate claims that millions of people were summarily executed.  This is getting ridiculous.  Attribute attribute attribute. Capone 23:39, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Own Population? 

message: Majority opinion of laymen, or majority opinion of scholars and experts?  I disagree that the notion that the USSR and China deliberately murdered millions of "their own" people is a majority opinion of laymen OR scholars.  Critics of the USSR and China who are better at staying on point do not waste their time in dealing with whether or not these places were communist.  They maintain that the brutality was primarily between the state which represented primarily one ethnic group, and other peripheral regions where ethnically non-chinese or non-russians lived.  More importantly, they maintain that the USSR and PRoChina inherited an empire from the Russian and Chinese empires.  I hope this brings to an end my part of the the "own people", colonialism, imperialism discussion.  Even if it were possible to demonstrate with the information presented here that it was a majority opinion that the USSR and China killed millions of people in a time of peace, this article would then need to explain why so many people believed this to be true since it was contrary to the facts.  I think this is the wiki thing to do and if you look at the article on race which was featured on the main page this week, they deal really well with science vs. the majority opinion of laymen.--Capone 21:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ukrainians aren't a minority.  They are Ukrainians, the majority of people where they primarily live, in the Ukraine. Capone 23:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  As for the Russian part of black book of communism, the Russian part is considered to be based primarily on the figures of Robert Conquest's "Harvest of Sorrow", figures which have already been debunked by other better educated historians using scientific methodology and not just heresay and number juggling times 10.  Most of the debate going on here are more appropriate in the article anti-communism. Anti-communism is a NATO nations socio-ideological construct, the same way that the USSR calling itself socialist was such a construct, a legitimating ideology.Capone 23:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majority Opinion Vs. Science 

message: This whole section is removed from article as non-applicable. This article is about actual communism ideology, not about what Western ideologists chose to call "communist states".
A non-hierarchical society and the equal distribution of work and goods is one of the primary goals of communism. Such a society would run in accord with Marx's principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". However, in all societies that have been described in the West as communist (where a communist party was the sole party in power), some kind of social hierarchy was established. 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.  Such unequal distribution was usually explained with the need for a phase of socialism (during which the rule of distribution is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work") that would prepare society for the transition to communism, but Marxist critics of the so-called communist states which called themselves socialist republics would point to this case in Poland as being a proof that the Warsaw Pact nations, and the socialist republics in south-east and east Asia, were in fact capitalist.
Mikkalai 08:26, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The main idea is to unmix this potluck here. All what you say fits. Mikkalai 08:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-hierarchal society 

message: Someone also just added a long POV passage alleging that Marx "simply failed" to account for human nature. Factually wrong. I've removed it. Shorne 13:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd add that such critique exists, but first, there is no such thing "Marxist psychology", second, the criticists fail to acknowledge that (1) "human nature" to a significant degree rooted in social relations (2) it is demonstrated many  times that "human nature" of the majority is easy to manipulate. Basically, I agree that this article is not a good place for detailed discussions of pros and contras, but the fact of such criticism should be mentioned. I am adding "other critiisms" sebsection, for brief remarks.  Mikkalai 16:55, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind a statement of this criticism with the POV stuff and factual errors stripped out, but I'm puzzled that you inserted such a statement along with an instruction (commented out) not to discuss the matter in the article. Coming as it does at the end of the article, the criticism seems a good deal more decisive and important than it is. Shorne 18:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I changed slightly. Is it better now? I beleive the commenter out instruction clearly states its purpose: the issue is highly disputable and multifaceted, and leads far away from the main topic. So let's state the fact that such opinions exist, but if one wants to go into deeper detail, let them make a new page and feel free to proceed with properly referenced discussion: who thinks so and why, and who says that the former opinion is wrong, etc., etc. Mikkalai 19:03, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That entire section needs to be reworked, including your earlier insertions about economics, as several of us discussed above. You have pointed out three valid objections to the claim that Marxism does not take human nature into account. While I agree with you that we don't want long polemical wars in these articles, a short criticism of the criticism is appropriate. That's what we do in other articles. Shorne 19:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text:  It is a fact that there exists a criticism that Marxism does not take into account human nature.  I'd say that Marx does indeed tackle psychology even though it is not stated as such by.  Alienation and this stuff about being determining consciousness is most definitely psychology.  Marx agreed that human nature was primarily rooted in or affected by social relations - the societies in which we were born, and the particular class one belongs to, along with other factors.  In the capitalism there is sort of a debate in the article, because it is written relatively NPOV, which is good.Capone 23:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Of Marxist psychology