Talk:Communism/Archive 7

message: I have inserted a concise new article to replace the old incoherent mess filled with "original research." The last two sections need work, but I will complete it very shortly. The old article was filled with so many unsourced personal theories editors have dropped in over time, and so many off topic tangents that the only way of making this into a viable encyclopedic entry was to rewrite it. Feedback, of course, is welcome. 172 05:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think this page should be rewrited, as the current version tells us a lot about the history of communism (may be this entry should be renamed and a new entry for "communism" is needed). However it is not answering the question: "What is communism". --Eternal 16:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: There doesn't seem to be any attempt serious attempt in this article to address the main failing of communism or the human cost of said ideology.  Specifically, the abuses of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are totally absent, which in any other wikipedia article would be considered a painful lapse.  Original research is not necessary - the costs of Mao's in China, Stalin's in Russia and Pol Pot's in Cambodia are well documented.  Although the specific numbers of millions are in dispute, that millions died as a direct result of communism is pretty crystal clear.  As a consequence, this article is not whole in any sense.
Is it? Well, this concerns the ideology. There is criticisms at communist state, which deals with the attempts to practice it throughout history....plus you realise that a lot of communists are actually anarcho-communists and do not follow Marx but rather Kropotkin - hence, "failings" is attributed to "communist state" - the Marxist side, not the anarchist side (which tends to oppose a state). Anyhow, a lot of the criticisms have been moved to criticisms of communism, which was mentioned at both its section and at the top, I believe. -- Natalinasmpf 05:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the article on the political movement and the ideology, not the regimes of China, Russia, Cambodia, etc. Please take a look at articles in encyclopedias such as Columbia, Encarta, and Britannica or sourcebooks such as the Oxford Dictationary of Politics, and you will see that their articles are similar to the rewrite, and nothing at all like the old article. 172 | Talk 06:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the anarcho-communists, yes I am aware. But they have never been nearly as notable enough to warrant the kind of treatment that they got in previous versions. Modern communism is almost always associated with Marx because Marxists have governed up to a third of the world's population, not the anarcho-communists. That's why anarcho-communists aren't even mentioned in the general article on communism in other sourcebooks. 172 | Talk 11:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Natalinasmpf

message: Ultramarine, do not dodge the issue of lack of relevancy of your section on "Communism in academia" with more hyperbole and inflammatory rhetorical questions. The place to discuss your recent headings would be under this heading. 172 | Talk 16:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid personal attacks and insinuations. If criticism is systematically deleted, then it affects the whole article. Ultramarine 16:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That has nothing to do with the factual accuracy, clean up, or original research headings. Further, there are POV-section headings. If a particular section bothers you, stick a POV-section tag under the heading, not the whole article. Now, the issue is the "communism in academia" section. That doesn't belong here given the subject matter, as it's a criticism of academia for being too friendly to leftists, not Communism per se. 172 | Talk 16:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is a minor issue. The main issue is why this article allows no more specific mention of the atrocities of the Communist states. Should an article about Nazism have no mention of the Holocaust? Ultramarine 16:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are references throughout the article to Stalin's crimes, as there are throughout Britannica, Columbia, Encarta's entries, along with entries in sourebooks such as the Oxford Dictionary, e.g., After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union's new leader, Nikita Khrushchev admitted the enormity of the repression that took place under Stain. That aside, I am not disputing adding a lit review to the "criticism of communism" section; the problem is what you are adding. Your section dealing with the book on academia is not relevant here, as it's a polemic against academia not even close to being as well know as the works by major anticommunist writers such as Conquest. 172 | Talk 16:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that you not long ago created a page clinically free of any criticism of Communism, including deleting critical external links and links to other critical Wikpedia articles. See talk above. Why are you deleting this?
"Communism has been criticized both with empirical examples and theoretical arguments.
As communism entails the abolition of the state, a communist state is an impossibility according to communist theory. There have been, however, a large number of states ruled by self-declared Communist parties. Large scale human rights violations and democide occurred in these states as documented in extensive historical research, particularly during the regimes of Stalin and Mao, but are shown to have started immediately after the Russian revolution during the regime of Lenin and to have continued to occur in all communist states during their existence. The many abuses that occurred under these regimes have often been used as an argument against the ideology of communism itself, especially by anti-communists, citing for instance Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat". This is rejected by communists as a simplistic approach to historical events and ideas, noting that communism itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be related to the actions of 20th century states. Many anti-communists consider this a dodge of criticism that could similarly justify dismissing human rights violations under capitalism as not representative of the capitalist theory." Ultramarine 16:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

text: See below. What I replaced it with has just as much content, minus the self-evident, though much shorter. My issue is not with your opinions on communist economics. My issue is "economy of words" here. 172 | Talk 16:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Communism in academia"

message: Because of the large number of reverts in the past few hours, I have protected this page. Please hammer out a compromise on this page. -- Viajero | Talk 16:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected 

message: Yesterday, I wrote a new paragraph on anarchism.  The old version seemed to be based on the example of Kropotkin, though anarchism's relationship with the communist movement is more diverse, and historically more influential strains-- Bakuninism and anarcho-syndalism in the early 20th century-- ought to be addressed before Kropotkin. Further, I moved the paragraph from the intro into the body of the article. The communist thought of an often-overlooked anarchist should not be mentioned in the intro to an article on communism before perspective on Trotsky and the founders of the different schools of Marxism-Leninism of ruling Communist parties-- Stalin, Mao, Tito, Hoxha, and even Deng is established. (For decades the CPC has proclaimed "Deng Xiaoping theory" a development in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.) 172 | Talk 16:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchism

message: Not to start a war here, but the definition of "communism" is NOT "the ideas of Karl Marx."  That is the definiton of "Marxism."
Tend to agree here - but that seems to be the preferred stateside perspective.  I think most European socialists would see communism as well predating Marx. But it may be as well to go with the flow now, qualifying the time period of principal interest (as post-Marx) appropriately, but adding to the early communism section (at least) with links out. We have _nothing_ on communistic thought in the French Revolution, an obvious omission, especially given its well-documented influence on Marx ; and Mao's famous comment when asked on the importance of the French Revolution - 'it's too soon to say'! Bob aka Linuxlad
Obviously I'm biased in my opinion as a Marxist, but to me Communism is the ideas first proposed by Marx and their derivatives. Scientific socialism as opposed to utopian socialism. I disagree that early commune societies could be classified as communist (trying to keep outside historical materialism theory here), to me a more accurate description would simply be "communal". For most of communist history Marxism has been the dominant communist theory but, while I of course recognise that there have been other strands of thought that developed around the same time (thinking particularly of Mikhail Bakunin here), all schools of proletariat thought are aware of themselves and their position in society - unlike primitive or religious societies which had no concept of class struggle. GreatGodOm 10:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: P.C. Socialism

message: So maybe I'll just do both.  I found these two quotes on a website somewhere, and I don't mean to divert any attention from the former argument, but anyone interested in politics has to see this laughably ironic comparison.  Would this qualify Hillary for the List of Communists??
"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
::-Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the 
Communist Party
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
::-Hillary Clinton, 1993
I liked the pair so much that I posted them on my User page.  Marx's dream of a worldwide revolution hits too close to home for comfort!  Salva 19:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't know whether to laugh or cry

message: What is there to discuss?
All that I did was to change things that are obvious mistakes. Like, for example, Communism is not a movement, but a social system. The term "Communist state" is really an oxymoron, as there will be no state in a communist society. The Soviet Union was actually officially Socialist (hence Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). North Korea does not even have a communist party. Communism is, according to the Marxist definition, not a movement based on "communal ownership of all property". That is simply completely false. I feel it would be easier if you would point out what you want to discuss. Thanks.
Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, but around a quarter of the world's population still lives under Communist rule.'
Again I thought this page was about the idealogy, not the the regimes. By saying that a quarter of the worlds population live under communism you are obviously including China in this. I would call China a single party state, a dictatorship or one of many things. But not Communist. Not to mention the special administrative regions (There's more regulation of the free market in the USA than Hong Kong), in my travels around China I have yet to see *anything* even remotely resembling what this communist idealogy represents, in everywhere in China I have travelled. Again I would call it a Police State, whatever.... but Communist? PUH LEASE.
:"Puh lease" spare us your personal opinions. Please click on Wikipedia:No original research so that I don't have to type out what so many have already stated again and again. 172 | Talk 00:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation by Kewp regarding changes 

message: I see a very little info on fall of Berlin Wall
and communism in East Europe. For example no
socialist Yugoslavia is mentioned, altough
this seems to be one of the most sucesfull communisms
until 1991.
Also, last communist country in Europe was
Milosevics Yugoslavia, until 5th October 2000
and also Ethiopia with Derga regime was communist
country until 1999 I think (see Ethiopian history)
As much as these seems unimportant, it is.
--Rastavox 01:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist Countries 

message: Someone reverted two changes I made last night, without courtesy of a comment.
French Revolution - we clearly need some reference to this since it (and the English Civil War) takes up a fair junk of Marx' (and Marxist) view of history.
Alienation - is NOT a natural human condition but has arisen under the strains of capitalism - at least that's what I learnt from the ex-IMG members I knew, and it fits with a quick google.
If no satisfactory explanation for the deletion or better offering on these issues I shall revert. Linuxlad
That might be your view, but the article's talking about Marx. Capitalizing the word "not" isn't going to convince anyone; you'll need to present texual evidence from the relevant primary (the works of Marx and Engels) and secondary sources. 172 | Talk 22:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alienation, French Revolution

message: Re: Natalinasmpf (what do you mean it's not universally accepted? It's a new term, no doubt, but the same principle. Free giving -> communism)
Please keep new terms out of the opening sentences. The language of the article should match the terms used by-- and used by others to describe-- the communist movements that were among the central actors shaping the course of modern history... Some might find the views held by the tiny new anarchist groups that advocate some sort of 'commmunist' society in recent years interesting, but they do not warrant such prominent attention in this article-- the most general of surveys on the political movement that little over a decade ago ruled over a quarter of humanity. 172 | Talk 22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Spare me the original research. Show me the text where they call their program the exact phrase "a gift economy." The term is recent, mostly used in the context of discussions on free software these days. The notion that the terms are synonymous appears to be your extrapolation. 172 | Talk 23:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  They of course do not, having their theories being in Russian/German and other languages. It is a different term for the [b]same concept[/b]. It therefore qualifies, just as "depression" is being used for "melancholy". The difference here, is that melancholy has a separate article of its own, to explain past use, but communal ownership is roughly equivalent of a gift economy. The idea of "communal ownership" - the same term is being used, but I'm merely linking it to a concept of a gift economy. No, the term of gift economy did not originate with free software, although that is it's popular use. Mind you, anti-communist writers and communist writers similarly did not use many of the economic phrases we use today, but yet it's included in articles referring to communism or socialism, or libertarianism. The inclusion is justified, it's merely a different term for the same concept. -- Natalinasmpf 00:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you are merely stating your own conjectures or "original research." The term "gift economy" is still rare in most discourse on communism. Unless you back up your ideas with a source, it's going to have to be removed. 172 | Talk 22:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Natalinasmpf 

message: Communism and History of communism are heavily overlapped, to the level dangerously approacing outright forking. It is against wikipedia policy. I suggest to make a section "History of communism" here that would start with the "Main article: " clause and contain only summary of the history. mikka (t) 00:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are overlapings.  But, communism and the history of communism are very different things.  The overlapings are a result of poor articles themselves, and should be fixed.  The communism article should be more about well... communism, and not the history of communism... Communism is a current movement still, not a historical factoid-- Between 1/6 and 1/5 of the world's population is in a communist state, it is pretty erronous that the communism article focuses on communism as some kind of history...  I'm more for taking the long histories out of the communism article, it seems to be more of a USSR related article anyway... Communism should be focused about... yes, again, communism.--So Hungry 03:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There is indeed a overlap. But Linuxlad hit the nail right on the head in pointing out the problem with So Hungry's suggestion that we disregard the history in communism. I'd only dispute one of Linuxlad's points: it's not just European socialists who see communism as part of an evolving tradition. The statement that the history of the communist movement determined how it would branch off into different ideological schools (Stalinism, Trotskyism, Titoism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, etc.) is an undisputable claim. Hence other encyclopeida articles on communism, like Encarta's , are based on similar structures discussing the variations among all the schools of communism that have emerged along with the historical developments... The problem lies in the history of communism entry (a cut-and-paste weave from various Wikipedia histories of Communist countries), not here. The overlap problem would be solved if the history article focused on the effects of Communist Party organization and mass mobilization, tracing the political triumps and defeats of the world Communist movement over time. 172 | Talk 19:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge/split with "History of communism" 

message: From the 2nd paragraph
"In the late 19th century, Marxist theories motivated several social democratic parties in Europe, although their policies later developed along the lines of reforming capitalism rather than overthrowing it"
This section needs changing a little. Marxist influenced parties sprang up across Europe and its only Britain were the major socialist party was not avoudley Marxist. The Social democratic links to wiki peage Social democracy. This page clearly states that social democracy represents the reformist (also called 'revisionist') tendency that developed in the late 19th/early 20th century. Also before the policies changed they were openly revolutionary, anyone clicking on the link will think otherwise. I propose for consistency changing the sentance too:
"In the late 19th century, Marxist theories motivated socialist parties across Europe, although their policies later developed along the lines of reforming capitalism rather than overthrowing it"
Any objections? TheInquisitor 13:15, 1 Oct 2005
:It's not really a major issue, though it's probably a  better idea to speak with a level of qualification, as the sentence is specified very broadly with respect to place and time. 172 | Talk 20:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: The words in Acts of the Apostles ch2 vv44-45 are taken by many (including Popper IIRC) to signify  more than just 'communal living'. I have edited. (I've left the Native NA Indians in in the same sentence but don't know if common ownership is attributable to their society also). Bob aka Linuxlad 16:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I got your last note on my talk page. Earlier I assumed you were going to revert my recent edits entirely. Instead you just inserted a clarification. I see nothing wrong with it, though I'm hardly anywhere remotely close to being an expert on the Bible. Thanks for seeking my input. 172 | Talk 20:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Christian Church

message: As of today, saying that China revaluated Maoisim is an understatement.  They have effectivly renounced all his policies and their current neo-con regime defines itself by nationalisim, very similar to Cheng Kai Shek.  In many ways, modern China is more right wing than left
It also runs free trade zones.  A point that should be made clear on how communism has "evolved" with the times.  (Gibby 17:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  China 

message: The section on criticism is clearly too short. It just lists a number of people that criticised communism, but doesn't say what they criticised about communism. If you compare this with Capitalism, you'll see that the latter has a huge and  quite exhaustive chapter on criticism of capitalism. For the sake of neutrality and balance, this article should also develop its criticism section. Luis rib 13:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The capitalism article is an unwieldy mess. It is the capitalism article that needs work, and some concision in its bloated criticisms section, not this article in this case. Further, the two articles are structured differently, leaving nothing that really needs balancing. This article largely avoids the "supporters say, critics say" babble of the capitalism article by considently bringing up negative information in each section, such as the crimes of the Stalinist USSR in the section under Stalinism. The main difference, though, is that no one has gotten around to starting the criticisms of capitalism article, which is going to happen sooner or later. Here we already have a quite detailed criticisms of communism aricle linked to the section. 172 | Talk 14:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The capitalism article may have its own problems, but at least it's not a lavish hymn like this one. Where does this one contain "negative information"? The crimes of Stalinism are barely mentioned; economic criticism of communism is virtually missing. There may be a link to a Criticism of communism, but that's not enough. It just puts all the negative elements into another page instead of at least mentionning them on this one. Luis rib 15:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the concluding remarks on Soviet Communism, which I have ensured remains the focus of this article as the most historically significant political expression of communist ideology (as you can see in this talk page, I have been quite vigilent against neo-communist POV-pushers who would wish to do otherwise), the article, states, e.g.: However, under Stalin's leadership, evidence emerged that dented faith in the possibility of achieving communism... Stalin had created in the Soviet Union a repressive state that dominated every aspect of life. After Stalin's death, the Soviet Union's new leader, Nikita Khrushchev admitted the enormity of the repression that took place under Stalin. Later, growth declined, and rent-seeking and corruption by state officials increased, which dented the legitimacy of the Soviet system. This article clearly leaves the impression of quite an unattractive, to say the least, political and ideological system. 172 | Talk 19:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that part. Yet what bothers me is that Stalinism is made responsible for most of the crimes, even though repression continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course Stalinism was much worse than other eras of the Soviet Union, yet repression existed right from the start and right until the end. Another point: If communism is to be thought in opposition of capitalism, shouldn't it be treated as an economic system as well, with a discussion of its merits and flaws? Luis rib 22:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The economic system would be socialism and state planning. Criticism of the Soviet economy can be found in criticisms of socialism. 172 | Talk 00:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the article on Nazism does not support nazism; insofar the article itself is already critical of Nazism and there is no need to have a separate section on criticism. Luis rib 13:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms section 

message: The section titled "Marxist theory on property" should be removed.  It's an anti-communist opinion, is poorly written, and is also inaccurate.  The Marxist position on private property is that it should not exist in a communist society, but, in a socialist society, only certain industries would be socialized.  Generally, the goal would be to collectivise key industries first.
Also, Communist movements outside of Europe have included land reform into their platforms.  That is a redistribution of private property to peasant farmers, for subsistence.  In effect, they advocate for the creation of a large petit-bourgeois, or "middle class," as a transitional phase.
Also, in the last paragraph, "It is argued that these the criticisms of communism are valid arguments against certain communist parties, and that not all of them are valid against communism."  So, the critics of the critics are saying that the arguments against communism really aren't arguments against communism, but against specific parties.  That's illogical!  The arguments are made against both.  This is similar to "capitalists" who say that criticism against capitalism is strictly criticism against capitalism as it exists, and not a "pure capitalism".  Hogwash.  It's criticism of both capitalism in practice and as a theory.
The article should focus on the history of Communism rather than the theory, except where the theory is necessary to understanding the history.
66.245.214.143 14:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxist theory on property 

message: The article states:
"In the last half of the nineteenth century the terms "socialism" and "communism" were often used interchangeably. However, Marx and Engels came to see socialism as an intermediate stage of society in which most productive property was owned in common, but with some class differences remaining. They reserved the term communism for a final stage of society in which class differences had disappeared, people lived in harmony, and government was no longer needed."
Marx and Engels never made such a distinction between socialism and communism (that was Lenin). Nor did they suggest there would be two phases as can be clearly seen by reading chapter one of Critique of the Gotha Programme. Hydrostatic 16:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism, communism, and phases 

message: The version of this section prior to the Revision as of 03:35, 9 December 2005 contains (IMHO) historical inaccuracies, or at best reflects only a particular point of view.  The Revision as of 03:35, 9 December 2005 was made to correct the problems with the prior versions.  Unfortunately, the Revision as of 09:16, 9 December 2005 reverted to the previous (flawed) statements.
Among the problems of the version prior to the Revision as of 03:35, 9 December 2005 are these:
1.  Was the intention of the Bolsheviks "to build socialism on a large scale" ?  This assumes the correctness of Stalin's theory of Socialism in One Country
: Was that not their goal set out in their campaign? -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to post a literature essay here - but it is fairly accurate - it is the entire concept of social Darwinism - Marx states (or implies) that one cannot have a communist revolution in a feudalistic society. Russia of course...was sort of like a feudalistic society. -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In Russia, there was no urban working class. The Bolsheviks had to firstly industrialise the nation, then to create a working class. Which is rather Machiavellian, but it was supposedly a step to revolution. -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Russia was not industrialised. -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It isn't silent - it explains it later on - you should read the rest of the article. Furthermore, it goes as far as to explain the schism between the anarchists and the Marxists. -- Natalinasmpf 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I really have a problem with your tone. It sounds like you were telling a story, as opposed to writing an encylopedia. It also overwrites many details which were legitimate. -- Natalinasmpf 20:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Under the Comintern

message: Gibby - there is no revision. It is a well known fact that the PRC has capitalist practices. This is already mentioned. See state capitalism - the Soviet Union and other Communist States practiced state capitalism - to paraphrase the article. Nearly all communist states had market economies of some sort, such as China. Furthermore, "free market" isn't even accurate. I'm also pleased you decide to make comments on my age as though it discredits me. That would be an entirely ad hominem attack which has nothing to do with the dispute. You assert that we're communists who are trying to impose favourable reivisonism of the article - but many of the editors who reverted you are not communist. Right-wingers and left-wingers alike would both agree that your section doesn't fit in with the article. Maoism is an ideology. Stalinism is an ideology. The state of the People's Republic of China having a free market is already mentiond in the article, and doesn't deserve a whole section. Gibby, there's a lot of info there - I think you're looking in the wrong place. It's People's Republic of China, not merely China. See the history section, and click on "main link". -- Natalinasmpf 19:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision

message: ===Free Trade Communists?===
What seems to be contradictory to communism as a theory, and even communism as it has been practiced, are the free trade zones currently operating in The People's Republic of China; the largest self described communist nation in the world. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Shao Ping, communist China runs some of the most free trade oriented regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the most free economy in the world . 	 
The People's Republic of China's "Special Economic Zones" have few restrictions upon buisnesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. 	 
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." 
-------------------
You include Stalinism, Maoism, a bunch of others, which by the definition of communist purists or communist sicophants, are not communists (because those forms of "communism" killed more than 100 million people)...but you won't include the latest form of "communism" as "practiced" because it simply doest agree with anti property basics?  or what? Seriously.  You editors have no ground to stand on. No good reasons, no logical reasons...what you've given holds no water with what the page declares itself to be, or what you yourself has declared the page to be.  YOU CANT EVEN BE CONSISTENT!!!!  
(Gibby 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibby, your logic is not so much undeniable as incomprehensible. I don't mean to be harsh but I cannot follow the jist of what you are trying to say, and you are still not addressing the fundamental issues raised above. Most of all, you seem to be misunderstanding the way consensus and discussion work on wikipedia. It is pretty clear that a number of other editors disagree with the additions you wish to make. No other editor agrees with you. The onus is on you to demonstrate what makes those additions useful and appropriate, without resorting to ad hominem accusations of POV pushing, and you should give other editors time to respond before going ahead with radical changes to an existing version. This article has been subject to huge revision over the years and embodies a huge amount of collective effort by innumerable editors. The discussion page here should be enough to demonstrate the amount of work and discussion that has gone into producing the existing version. This is not to say that substantial changes cannot be made, but an existing version carries considerable weight. In short, we discuss the alterations you want to make first. You do not add them and then simply revert anyone who supports the existing version whilst shouting at those editors about the need for discussion. That is not how things work. Mattley (Chattley) 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That WAS never a reason that we cited. You made up that reason and put words into our mouths. "Free trade communists" doesn't fit in not because it's contradictory to communism, but because it doesn't pertain to ideology per se, it's making a huge fuss about the irony of the situation, as opposed to talking about communism and mentioning the fact that China has a market economy, rather than focusing on the fact that China has a market economy and not discussing how China justifies this status. -- 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Your section is not a "revisionist" form of communism. It's a redundant piece of info that belongs  to the PRC specifically, since you're using it as a case study, when an example has already been mentioned. We don't need an entire section about it, because for one, it is highly redundant. We already HAVE links to the People's Republic of China. If they want to know more about the PRC, they can click on that link. We don't need it clogging up the article because this article is long enough already. -- Natalinasmpf 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't clear at all. What is the point of the section you keep trying to assert? You start out with the statement What seems to be contradictory to communism as a theory before introducing the idea of Free Trade Zones in China. This asserts that China is representative of communism in theory (and practice, according to your later versions). This is a clear POV assertion. Find some notable and reputable critic who makes the point you want to make and you can attribute it to him or her; that is within the framework of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Mattley (Chattley) 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How does it not fit

message: What seems to be contradictory to communism as a theory, and even communism as it has been practiced, are the free trade zones currently operating in The People's Republic of China; the largest self described communist nation in the world. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Shao Ping, communist China runs some of the most free trade oriented regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the most free economy in the world . 	 
The People's Republic of China's "Special Economic Zones" have few restrictions upon buisnesses, industries, imports and exports, including the elimination of duties. Since the opening of the Free Trade Zones China has maintained a growth rate of over 8%, and originally saw growth rates around 12%. 	 
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." 
-------------------
You include Stalinism, Maoism, a bunch of others, which by the definition of communist purists or communist sicophants, are not communists (because those forms of "communism" killed more than 100 million people)...but you won't include the latest form of "communism" as "practiced" because it simply doest agree with anti property basics?  or what? Seriously.  You editors have no ground to stand on. No good reasons, no logical reasons...what you've given holds no water with what the page declares itself to be, or what you yourself has declared the page to be.  YOU CANT EVEN BE CONSISTENT!!!!  
(Gibby 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gibby, your logic is not so much undeniable as incomprehensible. I don't mean to be harsh but I cannot follow the jist of what you are trying to say, and you are still not addressing the fundamental issues raised above. Most of all, you seem to be misunderstanding the way consensus and discussion work on wikipedia. It is pretty clear that a number of other editors disagree with the additions you wish to make. No other editor agrees with you. The onus is on you to demonstrate what makes those additions useful and appropriate, without resorting to ad hominem accusations of POV pushing, and you should give other editors time to respond before going ahead with radical changes to an existing version. This article has been subject to huge revision over the years and embodies a huge amount of collective effort by innumerable editors. The discussion page here should be enough to demonstrate the amount of work and discussion that has gone into producing the existing version. This is not to say that substantial changes cannot be made, but an existing version carries considerable weight. In short, we discuss the alterations you want to make first. You do not add them and then simply revert anyone who supports the existing version whilst shouting at those editors about the need for discussion. That is not how things work. Mattley (Chattley) 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: That WAS never a reason that we cited. You made up that reason and put words into our mouths. "Free trade communists" doesn't fit in not because it's contradictory to communism, but because it doesn't pertain to ideology per se, it's making a huge fuss about the irony of the situation, as opposed to talking about communism and mentioning the fact that China has a market economy, rather than focusing on the fact that China has a market economy and not discussing how China justifies this status. -- 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Your section is not a "revisionist" form of communism. It's a redundant piece of info that belongs  to the PRC specifically, since you're using it as a case study, when an example has already been mentioned. We don't need an entire section about it, because for one, it is highly redundant. We already HAVE links to the People's Republic of China. If they want to know more about the PRC, they can click on that link. We don't need it clogging up the article because this article is long enough already. -- Natalinasmpf 00:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't clear at all. What is the point of the section you keep trying to assert? You start out with the statement What seems to be contradictory to communism as a theory before introducing the idea of Free Trade Zones in China. This asserts that China is representative of communism in theory (and practice, according to your later versions). This is a clear POV assertion. Find some notable and reputable critic who makes the point you want to make and you can attribute it to him or her; that is within the framework of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Mattley (Chattley) 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Trade Communists?

message: Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours.
(Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.)
≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning 

message: I propose this header Communism or communism be renamed to Capitalization. I would have changed it myself it hadn't been for the page block. :( — Ambush Commander(Talk) 04:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename Communism or communism 

message: Contrary to original communist theory, and even communism as it has been practiced under regimes such as Lennin, Stalin, and Mao, The People's Republic of China; the largest country whose ruling party refers to itself as communist, runs Special Economic Zones dedicated to capitalist enterprise, free from central government control. After opening up trade to the world under Deng Xiaoping, The People's Republic of China runs some of the most economically free regions in the world, including Hong Kong, which is regarded by the Hoover Institute and the Wall Street Journal as the world's freest economy . 
The People's Republic of China's "Special Economic Zones" have few restrictions upon buisnesses, 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." 
:KDRGibby, you still haven't anwered the points I raised above. But anyway, look at it this way. Here is what happens when you do some google searches on "free trade communist"  and "free trade communism". . You get 27 results for the first and 92 for the second. Most of those are not referring to the phrase but contrasting one part with another. "Free Trade Communism" isn't a notable new development in communist theory/practice. If it contradicts communism as a theory and communism as it has been practised, isn't that a good indication that we shouldn't be discussing it at length in an article about communism? Why not add the material on Special Economic Zones to the article on China instead? Mattley (Chattley) 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, once more. "Free Trade Communism" isn't a notable new development in communist theory/practice. There are not people out there talking about what a significant development this is in the history of communism. If there were, 'free trade communism' would come back with lots of google hits. There are people discussing how significant it is in the development of the PRC, which it is. So why not add the material to the article on China? If it contradicts communism as a theory and communism as it has been practised, isn't that a good indication that we shouldn't be discussing it at length in an article about communism? Mattley (Chattley) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free Trade Communists?

message: In my opinion, there are many sorts of statements that are immediately suspect as original research, and more or less require verifiable sources if they are to stand. Such suspect statements include statements of the implications of certain theories. For example, if one states, "Person X's theory implies Y", that is likely to be original research, that it is likely that the editor actually made the implication. It would not be original research if a verifiable source drew the implication, although questions of neutrality may come into play at that point. Another suspect class of statements are those that purport to provide the motives or reasons behind the actions of various parties. Again, if there are verifiable sources, then it would not be original research, but these sorts of statements are immediately suspect. A third class of statements that I would find suspect includes those that have "The world" or "History" as the subject of an action clause.
Suspect statements are not necessarily original research. However, the following phrases in Communism are examples of things that raise red flags for me.
:"Marx's theory had presumed that..." (Who drew the implication from Marx's theory? A verifiable source, or the author of the edit?)
:"according to Marxian theory" (According to Marxian theory, or according to the interpetation of Marxian theory of the editor?)
:"For this reason, the socialist Mensheviks..." (Who drew this inference? The editor? or a verifiable source?)
I would favor the establishment of an informal, but at least explicitly stated agreement regarding such suspect statements.
The agreement I would propose is this:
:1. An editor puts on the discussion page a section entitled
:::"Original Research -- some description".
:2. Other editors supply, within 48 hours, verifiable sources if they exist, or a request for extension.
:3. If no offer of verifiable sources or request for extension is made within 48 hours, an editor may edit or remove the suspect statement.
:4. Editors agree not to revert a suspect statement removed or editted in accordance with this procedure, unless verifiable sources are provided.
(BostonMA 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal re: Original Research

message: (please add comments at the end and do not modify original formatting)
According to many Maoists or adherents of movements that emerged from Maoism, Maoism is a branch of communist theory/politics, but  the political faction which holds power in the Peoples Republic of China today is not a branch of communist theory/politics.  I do not know whether any editors of belong to those political tendencies or not.  Nor is it any of my business.  However, the arguments against including a discussion of capitalist enterprises in the Peoples Republic of China are consistent with the POV of the Maoists and of movements that emerged from Maoism.
I will describe another POV as "A branch of Trotskyism" although it may be found amongst a wide variey of political POVs.  According to the adherents of this view, Maoism is a deviant offshoot of communist theory/politics, as is the current faction which holds power in China today.  A deviant offshoot of communist theory/politics might be considered "a branch" of the communist movement in some contexts, and might be considered "not a branch" of the communist movement in other contexts.  But in any context, either both Maoism and the current ruling faction are considered branches of communism, or both are considered not be be branches of communism.  I do not know whether any of the editors of Communism are aware that they have, in essence argued against the inclusion of this POV, or whether they are unaware.  That is also not my business.  The point is that the arguments that have been raised are consistent with a policy of excluding representation of this POV.
These two POV's are not minor views within the field of far-left politics.  Nor is the contention between them trivial.  It is my opinion, that the Communism article should incorporate and represent both POVs.  That is the road to neutral POV.
These two POV's are not minor views within the field of far-left politics.  Nor is the contention between them trivial.  It is my opinion, that the Communism article should incorporate and represent both POVs.  That is the road to neutral POV.
In my opinion, NPOV is more important than considerations of redundancy with other articles, length of the article, and other stylistic matters.
That in short, is the substance of the NPOV issue as I see it.  (BostonMA 02:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are very interesting points, BostonMA. They are not at all the points that the disputed section tries to make, but that's by the by. Perhaps you could rephrase them in a more formal way or otherwise indicate how you think the discussion of China's relation to Maoism, Trotskyism and other branches of the communist movement could be incorporated into the article. I assume you wouldn't need to include detailed off-topic discussion of the substance of China's market reforms, their impact on economic growth, their assessment by the Hoover Institute and so forth, that would be more appropriately included at the People's Republic of China would you? Mattley (Chattley) 02:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Substance of NPOV complaint

message: There seems to be a lack of solidarity among the editors of this article...  sorry, i had to!
Solidarity was a polish political party that began in, i believe 1980, by unionized workers who demanded free government, free prices, and free markets.  Unfortunatly their reforms would not fully succeed as the forces of conservatism rushed into to prevent further reform...which in and of itself created problems for the economy...those problems would be blamed on market reform...even though market reform didnt cause the problem.  But all this is another story!!!   :P
(Gibby)
What do you mean market reform didn't cause the problem? (Not that I disagree, but you must cite your reasons). -- Natalinasmpf 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  solidarity. 

message: I could agree with the addition of a section as follows below (based on Gibby's text):
Communists in power and the free market
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)
thread_title:  Adding section on free market