Talk:Criticism of communist party rule/Archive 2

message: There is an ongoing RfAr involving this article, and many diffs from the talk page were used as evidence in it. The discussion below has been archived at Talk:Criticism of communist party rule/Archive 1, but I believe it should also remain visible here in order to aid in the arbitration process. The new Talk page (including ongoing discussions) can be found at Talk:Criticism of communist party rule/new discussion. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

message: :Well, I've taken up the herculean task of cleaning up the article, giving it a better structure and making it NPOV. I have to say I'm pretty proud of my work. :) Go and have a look. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty good, but we have about 12 hours before a series of reverts and crys of "censorship of the worst kind" from you know who... I never realistically imagined it becoming so passable. Still, it could correct more flaws in Ultramarine's writing, such as more direct citations of authors such as Conquest, rather than nebulous references to "critics of communism." Vague passages lacking context like the following are still troubling: "Extensive historical research has documented large scale human rights violations that occurred in Communist states." Of course, one could just as easly write it following in (say) capitalism: "Extensive historical research has documented large scale human rights violations that occurred in capitalist societies." Instead, such a passage should cite the conclusions of specific authors, and how they pin the blame on communism.  172 | Talk 16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did my best to leave his anti-communist arguments virtually untouched, so as to prove that I am editing in good faith and want to reach a good quality, readable and NPOV article. Most of my heavy editing was done on the pro-communist arguments, which had been grossly misrepresented and dismissed. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. His writing can remain largely intact, but we can fill in the attributions within the text later on. 172 | Talk 16:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken another look over it and corrected one obviously false statement. Human rights violations haven't occured in ALL Communist states ALL the time. But other than that, I've left the human rights objections unchanged and unattributed. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At least not on the scale it implied; if one looked broadly enough, one could find human rights problems in any country at any time, including the U.S., which boasts the world's highest per capita prison population...  Later on I'll take another look at the paragraph and turn in more into a summary of Conquest, Pipes, Rummel, et al. 172 | Talk 17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: I will remove the claims of original research and factual inaccuracy unless examples are presented. Ultramarine 05:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: 172, you have violated Wikipedia policy by deleting The two-version template. Here is a link to my version  Ultramarine 06:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of Wikipedia policy 

message: Mihnea Tudoreanu, you have violated Wikipedia policy by editing my comments. . I have restored them. Ultramarine 18:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of Wikipedia policy 

message: Mihnea Tudoreanu, you have violated Wikipedia policy by reverting my version which was the first to use the "Two-version" tag. It states that there should be a consensus on the talk page first. You have also violated policy by removing the template. Ultramarine 07:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And you have violated wikipedia policy by refusing to even pretend to discuss our dispute on the Talk page. My reverting to an earlier version than my latest one was an obvious mistake (notice I had just added the "Two-version" tag right before your most recent reverts). As you can see, when I make a mistake, I fix it in 10 minutes - which is far more than can be said for you. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shown numerous examples of well-referenced historical facts that you have deleted and answered your other claims. Ultramarine 07:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First you entirely dismissed, then you barely acknowledged my arguments in a 3-line paragraph. As for your "numerous examples", last time I checked there were only two short paragraphs of them, and I had agreed to start discussing and including them as soon as we reached consensus on the more general issues with the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect since my arguments are spread over several paragraphs in different edits. However, I have now incorporated several of your points in my version, see below. Hopefully we can now together in similar good faith include the well-referenced historical facts that are in my version but not in yours. Ultramarine 13:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi, Ultramarine! I have discussed this disingenuous approach to the two-versions tag here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ultramarine#Two-versions But it does have a constructive use. See below. Septentrionalis 22:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of Wikipedia policy 

message: Chooose M as a working basis
# Because it contains so much neutral stuff (like the last sentence of M's intro, or the chronology of Socialist Realism), that I would be adding back in anyway. Septentrionalis 23:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw Poll

message: Once we agree on the version to use as our working basis, we will discuss here the first section of the article. Watch this space. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First section

message: I think we should discuss the actual facts instead of declaring one version to be a "working basis". What are the objections to the referenced data presented in my version? I will remove the templates claiming factual inaccuracy and original research unless specific counter-examples are given. Ultramarine 12:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I endorsed M largely because it contains almost all of U. What else would you like to include? Please list here.
However, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I will oppose changes intended to advocate anti-Communism (or Communism) on that ground alone. Septentrionalis 14:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The facts 

message: Your version excludes most of my external links. Please correct. Ultramarine 10:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please list them here, or insert them yourself. Some of them really don't belong in the article. For example, I intentionally omitted the second reference under environment, above, as redundant; and the amazon link to Robert Conquest is unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:ISBN for the proper technique.Septentrionalis 17:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It may help to demonstrate that a variety of Right ideologies join in the criticism, instead of it being Rummel's private project, as Ultramarine's list would make it appear. I'm not sure that the external links have to be WP quality; they are the subject of this article, not an extension of it. Septentrionalis 15:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a point; stupidity is not a valid reason to exclude external links. ;) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Three of these are book references and not external links. I removed two of these that seemed to be duplicates. Regarding the external links, Rummel is probably the only scholar that presents the details of his scholarly estimates online. Therefore there is nothing wrong with having this linked in some detail. Note that most of the links only goes to graphs and tables. Ultramarine 18:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

text: You still have not included the critical external links presented above. Please correct. Ultramarine 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above comments. Septentrionalis 14:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously not. Ultramarine 19:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: *Matthew White's summary of different estimates Note that only some of numbers are totals for the Communist states.
***and therefore off topic.Septentrionalis
****Why? Different totals of Communist democide should certainly be in criticisms article. Ultramarine 19:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Three of these are book references and not external links. I removed two of these that seemed to be duplicates. Regarding the external links, Rummel is probably the only scholar that presents the details of his scholarly estimates online. Therefore there is nothing wrong with having this linked in some detail. Note that most of the links only goes to graphs and tables. Ultramarine 18:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Online number estimates of Communist democide

message: * Lenin: A New Biography
*Lenin: A Biography
*Stalin : The  First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives
*Trotsky : The Eternal Revolutionary Ultramarine 19:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have not included the critical external links presented above. Please correct. Ultramarine 22:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above comments. Septentrionalis 14:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Obviously not. Ultramarine 19:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical biographies

message: Your version excludes this:
Cuba is often cited as a successful example of by communists. However, Cuba was one of most developed nations in Latin America before  Castro. Other Latin American nations have seen greater increases in literacy than Cuba. Calories per person has declined in Cuba  while it has increased in most other Latin American nations. Cubans eat less cereals and meat than before Castro  . Ultramarine 10:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is part of the comparison controversy (comparing communist states with capitalist countries) and will be incorporated in a larger discussion of that controversy. The last time we handled this subject it resulted in the utter mess over at The Black Book of Communism, so this time we'll have to be more organized. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Clearly a different article. Comparison controversy seems to be unused. Why not take this there? Septentrionalis 18:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Comparison controversy" is just an informal title I use for the practice (on both sides of the communism vs. capitalism argument) to compare various communist states with various capitalist ones and draw conclusions from this comparison. I don't think anyone else uses the term, and there are certainly no books written on it, so it doesn't deserve its own article. I strongly believe we should keep all criticisms of communism in one place - because if there's something we omit here, you can bet someone will later come along, ignore the link to the article where the matter is discussed, and ask why we don't present it here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Now, going back to the comparison controversy, it goes something like this: Anti-communists compare X with Y, and point out that the capitalist country was better off. Communists point out flaws (such as other factors that could have influenced prosperity besides the economic system) and come up with a comparison between Z and W. Anti-communists retaliate with another comparison of their own, and so on ad nauseaum until the whole discussion degenerates into an argument over which countries are more capitalist than others. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have failed show that the presented facts are incorrect. Please correct your text. Ultramarine 20:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuba

message: Your version excludes:
"However, Marx never insisted on this and he rejected the concept of liberal democracy. That all the Communist states became and remained  totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism." Ultramarine 10:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Marx (and Lenin, and all the other communists) always insisted that democracy was a central part of their principles. They rejected liberal ("bourgeois") democracy, of course, but embraced the notion of democracy itself. As my version points out, some communist states even adopted the name of "Democratic Republics". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You two appear to be using two different definitions of the word "liberal", one associated with 'civil society', the other with 'bourgeois'. This is one reason to avoid the phrase, as ambiguous. Septentrionalis 16:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please include that that Marx rejected liberal democracy. You can of course note that he supported direct democracy, although he never explicitly required this for his dictatorship of the proletariat. I will correct my text. Ultramarine 19:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He never explicitly required much at all for his dictatorship of the proletariat - he said very little about it (because he thought that planning the future constituted utopian socialism). I will gladly add the fact that he rejected liberal democracy and supported direct democracy - under which section would you like me to add it? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it matter exactly where. Please also include the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" which many critques have used. And also the point "That all the Communist states became and remained  totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism." Ultramarine 22:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a problem with that argument, however. As the Historical Atlas of the 20th Century points out , no democracy older than 3 years ever became a Communist state. The majority of Communist states replaced other dictatorships, not democracies. The only exceptions are to be found in Eastern Europe after WW2, and even there, the interlude of democracy between wartime dictatorships and post-war Communist states was short (with the 3 year maximum being reached in Czechoslovakia, 1945-1948). Thus, you can hardly blame the communists for creating dictatorships. At most, they just maintained them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is 3 years important? Please include the above points. Ultramarine 12:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important because it shows that Communist states did not become dictatorships under Communist rule. They were already dictatorships (with the aforementioned exception of 4 very young Eastern European democracies). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mihnea would do better, and have a shorter time limit, if he simply acknowledged Czechoslovakia as an exception: the Government of 1945-8 was the successor in interest and policy to the First Czechoslovak Republic. Therefore 3 very young Eastern European democracies and Czechoslovakia, which had been severely brutalized in the Second World War. Septentrionalis 15:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please continue discussion below at "Dictatorship of the proletariat and the Paris Commune" Ultramarine 21:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Democracy

message: Your version excludes:
"Workers were not allowed to join free labor unions." Ultramarine 11:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It will be added. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Labor unions- ''resolved''

message: Your version excludes:
"However, Marx’s dream of a  socialist revolution involved a transitory phase known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Later, Marx reasoned, the state  would "whither away". The Communist states claimed to be in this transitory phase and to be "working towards communism". It can thus  be argued that the Communist states followed Marx's theory and that it failed to work in the real world." Ultramarine 11:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only things Marx ever said about the dictatorship of the proletariat were that 1. The proletariat would be the ruling class, and 2. It would look somewhat like the Paris Commune. The fact that the communist states claimed to follow Marx's theory is obvious; whether they actually did follow it is very controversial, with communists as early as 1936 (the year Trotsky wrote The Revolution Betrayed) claiming that the communist states were non-Marxist. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

text: and the paragraph as phrased would be PoV even if it were correct. "Dream"? a tendentious word if there ever was one. However, if M does not note that the communist states failed to achieve true communism while claiming to head there, I will add it. Septentrionalis 22:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some more arguments. "Some communist supporters argue that the Communist states were not communist since they were not democratic. However, Marx rejected the concept of liberal democracy. He never gave any specific details or had any explicit requirements regarding how the dictatorship of the proletariat should be implemented.  Some argue that Marx and Engels may have supported the claimed direct democracy of the Paris Commune as a model for transition to communism. Others dispute this  and there were human rights violations even during the few months the Commune existed . That all the Communist states became and remained  totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism." Please include. Ultramarine 21:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Paris Commune did not "violate human rights" any more than the French state which preceded it or the French state which followed it. As a matter of fact, thousands of communards were executed without trial by the new authorities after the Commune was crushed by the French army. Thus, your argument is based on a double standard. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is still no excuse. See the initial argument in "There were human rights violations before the Communists took poower" below. Ultramarine 21:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument below only applies to cases where the violations by communist states were far greater than those by the states which preceded or followed them. In other cases, you are holding a double standard and trying to insert a piece of utter hypocrisy into the article. This will not fly. To use your Hitler example: If Hitler exterminated Jews at a time when every other country in Europe (including his enemies) also exterminated Jews, then you could not use this as a criticism against Hitler in particular. You could only use it to criticize the entire historical period he lived in. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are actually saying that is other nations had  killed more Jews, then one could not criticize Hitler for killing Jews? Only "the entire historical period he lived in"? Ultramarine 10:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. You could not single out Hitler as a mass murderer of Jews and criticize him alone for it if other countries were doing the same at the same time. You would have to criticize all those countries together, or the entire historical period. But here's a real-world example to illustrate the same point: You cannot criticize one particular Greek city-state for endorsing slavery, because all Greek city-states endorsed slavery. At most, you could criticize the entire historical period (the Ancient world) for being a time when slavery was commonplace. Do you understand now? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, I think it is better to continue the earlier discussion about "Democracy" here. I still ask that Marx's rejection of liberal democracy should be included as well as "That all the Communist states became and remained totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism." Ultramarine 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, here's a compromise: I will add this argument, but also the counter-argument that the vast majority of those states were undemocratic (and violated human rights) long before communist rule. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This argument is discussed elsewhere, see "See the initial argument in "There were human rights violations before the Communists took poower" below." Ultramarine 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well. Then I guess we'll just have to combine this argument and the one below. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have failed to explain why they should not be included, I again ask that the critical facts regarding Dictatorship of the proletariat, the Paris Commune, and Democracy should be included. See also the latest arguments regarding this here  Ultramarine 19:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Due to reorganization the link is now instead . Ultramarine 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictatorship of the proletariat and the Paris Commune

message: Your version excludes the categories Soviet Union and Soviet repression structures and people. Ultramarine 01:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been added. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: See also - ''resolved''

message: Your version states "Finally, in the first half of the 1980s, Hungary, with a largely collectivised agriculture, exported more agricultural products than France from an agricultural area little more than a quarter of the French (FAO production, 1986, FAO Trade vol. 40, 1986).". This is contradicted by FAO's own statistcal database . Remove or add this contradiction. Ultramarine 15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this does not belong in this section, it will be discussed below. Septentrionalis 15:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not falsely use my signature again. Here is a link showing where search was done . Ultramarine 20:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you calm down. It's not a mortal sin to move someone's text to a more appropriate section of the Talk page. Anyway, I did a FAO query of my own, and, as it turns out, all agricultural production indices are higher for Hungary than France during the early 80's (though exports are not).  -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such indices compare food production in the same country over time. They cannot be used to compare food production in different countries at the same time. Look at this , Hungary produces less than France however you measure. Ultramarine 21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, Hungary achieved higher growth in agricultural output than France. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you cannot easily compare countries with these indices. Note that France exported about 10 times more than Hungary, which is interesting considering that Hungary exported from "from an agricultural area little more than a quarter of the French". Ultramarine 21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If you had bothered to read the above links you would have noticed that France produced more in almost all categories, including grain and fodder. Ultramarine 03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food export from Hungary and France - resolved 

message: "Some supporters of communism find this approach simplistic, noting that humans rights violations such as executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both non-democratic Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist takeovers.  However, past evils in an old regime can hardly be used to justify new ones; otherwise supporters of Hitler could justify his deeds by pointing to past human rights crimes by the German Empire in Africa. Advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them. However, this defense can also be criticized. Alexander Solzhenitsyn argues in his book Gulag Archipelago that the living conditions and death rates of the inmates in the Soviet era Gulags were much worse than those of the Tsarist era Katorgas. The worst crop failure of late Tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths, while famines under both Lenin and Stalin caused many millions of deaths ." Please include the critical arguments. Ultramarine 21:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Past evils of an old regime can be brought up as arguments that the new regime is no worse than the old one. If the crimes of the German Empire in Africa were as bad as the Holocaust, this would make a perfectly good argument for the claim that the German Empire was no better than Hitler. Similarly, if a certain capitalist regime engaged in the same kinds of crimes as its communist successor, this would make a perfectly good argument for the claim that the capitalist regime in question was no better than the communist one. You seem to make the mistake of trying to criticize practical communist states by comparing them to liberal theory. This is unacceptable. You must compare practice with practice, not practice with theory. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. You seem to be saying what is already included. "Advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them.". Are you accepting the current version? Ultramarine 10:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am not. At least not in its current form. Perhaps it might be acceptable after a bit of NPOV-ing. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 10:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your suggestion? And again, even if other nations killed more Jews than Hitler, then Hitler could still be criticzed. However, this is not the case here, the Communists were worse than the comparison. Ultramarine 11:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the example I used in another discussion further above: You cannot criticize one particular Greek city-state for endorsing slavery, because all Greek city-states endorsed slavery. At most, you could criticize the entire historical period (the Ancient World) for being a time when slavery was commonplace. Do you understand now? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this means that one cannot criticze capitalist states for poverty, inequality, and so on since these problems exists in other states? Ultramarine 13:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can criticize them for it as long as you mention the fact that these problems are not unique to capitalism. And if advocates of feudalism tried to criticize capitalism for inequality, for example, they would be hypocrites and their criticism would not be valid. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then include the above criticism. Ultramarine 16:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There were human rights violations before the Communists took poower 

message: Bertrand Russell and Emma Goldman  were not Marxists. They were socialists critical of Marxism. Thus is it inaccurate to have them in a section called "Communist critique of Communist states". My version is more accurate with more information and contains Marxists that were critical even before the October revolution . Ultramarine 22:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The present text expressly says that they were members of the non-Communist Left. You probably want to look a little further before you call Goldman a socialist, however. I have changed the section header, although making an accuracy dispute out of a section wandering a little away from its label does seem a trifle far-fatched. Septentrionalis 22:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My version is still better with more history and better examples, considering that the section is a communist defense and do not mention critique of Marxism itself, which non-Marxist socialists would. Your version is still factually inaccurate in other sections, like on East Germany and Technology. Ultramarine 12:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bertrand Russell and Emma Goldman - ''resolved'' 

message: What, by the way, does Ultramarine suppose the connexion between these two to have been? Septentrionalis 22:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Read my version here . Ultramarine 09:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as I can make out a thesis in this confused text, it is arguing that Communists do not hold that the Revolution will be conducted by elections, but - to quote another non-Communist thinker- by blood and iron. This is true, although there have been exceptions. It quotes Marx and Engels to this effect, so it is not a criticism of Lenin for departing from Marxism. Nor is it a criticism on grounds of dishonesty, without a Communist claim to the contrary. So what's the point? Septentrionalis 15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have improved the text somewhat "Some communist supporters argue that the Communist states were not communist since they were not democratic. However, Marx and Engels rejected the concept of liberal democracy. They gave few hints and had no explicit requirements regarding how the dictatorship of the proletariat or the later communist society should be implemented. Some argue that Marx and Engels may have supported the claimed direct democracy of the Paris Commune as a model for transition to communism. Others dispute this  and there were human rights violations even during the few months the Commune existed . Engels stated that "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"  and "the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries". Lenin later used cited these and other statements by Marx and Engels as support for the authoritarian principles of vanguard party and "democratic centralism" during the dictatorship of the proletariat. This excluded democracy even in theory outside the ruling Communist party . When the Marxists only gained a minority vote in the democratic Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917, Lenin dispersed the Constituent Assembly at the end of its first day's session and overturned the election. That all the Communist states became and remained  totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism."
No Communist state ever claimed to be communist; read the header of the article for the distinction being made by the capital letter. In fact, their chief and usual excuse was that they were - like Jack Benny - working on it. What was said repeatedly by Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Mao can hardly be  a criticism of Communism. I have included this explanation, and the resulting criticism under the section in the article called "20th century Communist states". Please read it, and then put here - in one sentence - what it is you are asserting. 
I cannot tell, from Ultramarine's paragraph, what all his words are trying to prove. If I can't, readers won't be able to either. (If he can't put the point of a paragraph in a single sentence, it needs to be rethought anyway.) Septentrionalis 19:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Your point was already included in the prior paragraph. I have done some reorganization See .
This is not responsive. Please state the point of your paragraph in a single sentence. It is so confusing that I cannot propose one. If the man who wrote it can't either, the odds are readers won't.  (If you need to recast it to see what it means, do it in your sandbox; please don't revert the text, it will only be rereverted. Septentrionalis 19:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Commune and the Communists

message: "The capitalist economists of his time, such as David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, agreed with most of these predictions, at least as the most likely forecast of events."
Source please. Ultramarine 12:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy. Septentrionalis 18:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... You are arguing using Ricardo's Iron law of wages. This only claims that the conditions will be the same for workers, not that they will get steadily worse or that all workers will become assembly line workers. Nor does it state that the capitalists must get richer, fewer, and become increasingly authoritarian monopolists. Nor that there must be a revolution. Mill rejected the law . Ultramarine 20:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill

message: Is there reason to keep the two-version tag any longer? Septentrionalis 18:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, since there is much disagreement. Ultramarine 19:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what we have now is quite sufficient since there is no agreement on many issues for the moment. If you want to find more differences, you can check yourself. Ultramarine 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two-version template

message: What remaining claims of original research are there for the consolidated version of the article? Septentrionalis 15:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None specified, removing tag. Septentrionalis 16:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: I my view, the dust needs to settle over the war between some contributors before even thinking of making this a featured article. It's the kind of subject matter that contributors need to have a rest from, then return with fresh eyes.
Just a trivial, but irritating, point: why is 'Communism' and related words spelt with an upper-case C?
:To distinguish  the proper name, "Communist Party", and institutions related to it (which have C) from the doctrine, ideal condition, or general tendency "communism". Few of these criticisms apply to Peter Kropotkin or William Morris. (Capitalizing "State" is traditional in the Left, including the non-Communist Left.) Septentrionalis 18:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur in general. However, the fact of criticism is what demonstrates that a particular subject is on-topic, in this article. Septentrionalis 18:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll see what I can do. Septentrionalis 18:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not yet ready for consideration for promotion 

message: Ultramarine has just updated the 2V tag. As far as I can tell, this switches the other-version pointer between two identical edits. Septentrionalis 18:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect. Here is a diff . Ultramarine 18:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see;  Ultramarine's edit summary was incorrect: he did correct one misspelling, and add one word, while revising the 2V tag; it was the reversion beforehand that was identical. I regret the minimal misapprehension. Septentrionalis 16:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why bother?

message: The consolidated version now contains everything common to version M and U; it contains substantially everything that was in either version, and which two editors have not deprecated. (In particular, it does not contain the disputed comparison between France and Hungary.)
A single editor reverting to version U, or any edit which differs from it by a few sentences, will involve, therefore:
*Massive, unjustified, deletions.
*insertion of material which two editors have separately removed. 
*For the avowed purpose of making this article a criticism of communism, rather than a discussion of such criticisms. 
Any of these would be sufficient grounds for re-reversion.
In addition, such reversions restore the critics say... Supporters say... style, which has been justly condemned above.  
I do wish Ultramarine would stop shooting himself in the foot with these silly reversions, which waste everybody's time. Edits to the consolidated version are welcome, and will be viewed on their merits. They may well stay; no-one contends the present version is flawless.  Septentrionalis 16:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an incorrect and misleading description. See the previous discussion above. There are also many other documented facts in the more critical version that are not mentioned in the other version. Ultramarine 16:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consolidated version

message: This is itself a misleading description, as are Ultramarine's edit summaries. Ultramarine's versions have been changing by a word or a sentence between times; for example, his latest version differs from his earlier ones by:
*a claim by Ukraina that Stalin's agricultural policies were genocide,
*and a generality about the opening of Communist archives
I would welcome both in the consolidated version if he cares to add them; although the first seems incomplete - Stalin was willing to starve peasants of any nationality. 
Aside from this handful of new sentences, I believe everything in U has either been added to the consolidated version or objected to above. Septentrionalis 18:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is again incorrect, here are some of the changes and added facts that are not covered in the discussion above . I have not yet added them to the discussion, because, as I have noted previously, most of the past discussions are still not resolved. Ultramarine 18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read both versions, and while there are substantive differences, I just don't see the vast divide that a twoversion tag suggests.  Robert A West 18:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a start, you can then start fixing the problems with the less critical version mentioned above. Ultramarine 18:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading descriptions

message: Please vote agree or oppose and sign with ~~~~ below.  I propose that 75% be considered consensus.
*Agree I proposed this.  Robert A West 20:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: I can see no mention of it being temporary. A poll in this case is meaningless, Wikipedia requires consensus. I suggest mediation, instead of trying to force a removal of much of the criticisms of communism without debate. Ultramarine 20:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with mediation. I also agree with removing the 2V template, if only to encourage you to work within the collaborative version (something you rarely, if ever, seem to do). If you want to add something, then why don't you just add it to the collaborative version? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made my suggestions above, but you refuse to incorporate them. Ultramarine 20:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I assert consensus has already been reached: A poll is about the only method of measuring that assertion.  There is a consensus on Wikipedia that 75% support strongly indicates a consensus.  Frankly, I will be surprised if anyone but Ultramarine opposes.  Robert A West 21:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Wikipdia require consensus in cases like this. Please do not again violate policy. Debate, do not simply delete arguments you do not like. By the way, I added some new arguments above. Ultramarine 21:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you misunderstand "consensus" as meaning "unanimity" (it doesn't), I am not sure what to make of your comment.  What policy do you claim I have violated wrt this page?  Please be specific.  Robert A West 21:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One is reverting the article when the two-version template states  that it should not . Ultramarine 21:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if anyone violated policy there, it was you.  The fact that the collaborative version had been worked on by multiple editors for some time as the "A" version of the 2V manifestly establishes that was the consensus.  Your revert was improper, and I properly reverted, as did Minhea. Robert A West 21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If you have some magical method of actually measuring NPOV, then please, let us see it. So far it has been your word against ours (or rather, your word against the word of everyone else who looked over the article and the dispute). But I guess you think this is all one giant communist conspiracy to prevent your holy Truth from being rightfully proclaimed by wikipedia, don't you? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 08:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a strange description. If you remove the two-version template then it is you who "borders upon abusing policy to win an edit war.". Or rather, who abuses policy in order to remove critical arguments. Instead, let others see them and use factual arguments. Is there something dangerous about letting others read them and form their own opinion? Ultramarine 23:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: It seems to me that the use of the past tense in the Censorship section is inappropriate.  North Korean censorship, suppression of dissent, and suppression of emigration are well-documented.  Castro is less heavy-handed, but I think that the accusation is well-sourced there as well.  I have had to rely on memory for sources, but I believe that I am correct.  Do we need more specific citations than are given?
(Yes, I know that Frontline is journalism, not peer-reviewed research, but it is careful journalism, and few people would charge that PBS has a right-wing bias.) 
Robert A West 21:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past vs Present Tense 

message: Some editors are now without consensus remove the Two-version template, the Factual inaccuracy template and refusing further factual discussions. Please see the history of the page. Ultramarine 22:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once more, with feeling.  The 2V template was taken off per consensus, please do not put it back.  The NPOV disputes are substantial, but the remaining factual disputes are relatively few and minor -- far less than the totally-disputed tag would lead a reader to believe.  If anyone other than Ultramarine thinks the totally-disputed tag is not massive overkill, please put it in, or let me know, and I will put it back or make sure not to take it out. Robert A West 15:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and factual inaccuracies 

message: I infer by "Resolved" that all of us agree that these sections are factual and NPOV as they stand.  Further improvements should be in the realm of ordinary editing.
*Life Expectancy
*Energy Efficiency
*Labor Unions
*See also
*Food Export from Hungary and France
*Bertrand Russell and Emma Goldman
I omit the section on "Two Version Template".  Ultramarine feels that consensus requires unanimity.  The rest of us (and WP:Consensus) do not.  208.20.251.27 16:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolved Sections

message: Ultramarine wants a version that Minhea and Septentrionalis oppose on NPOV grounds.  Presumably, Ultramarine considers only his version NPOV.  208.20.251.27 16:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Famine

message: There is a dispute as to which links are encyclopedic and appropriate. 208.20.251.27 16:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your summary is incorrect. I refer to the complete discussions above in "List of proposed changes". If you want to add something, do it there. Are you Robert A West? If so, please use your signature. Ultramarine 16:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I got logged off during the save again <groan>  and twice we have edit-conflicted while I tried to correct the sigs.  (Murphy strikes!)  My summary is in good faith -- if mistaken, it is evidence that the complete discussion has become hard to follow.  Please summarize what your current objections are to each section.  Robert A West 16:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Your version is incorrect: "As noted above, the Soviet space program saw remarkable progress, and so did pure science and military technology, in all Communist states."
My version with source:
"Although the Communist states often emphasized the importance of the "hard sciences", comparatively few advances were made in them. For example, there were very few Nobel prize winners from Communist states ."
:I congratulate Ultramarine on finding what must be one of the few sites on this subject to omit the Soviet Union. Presumably, since this appears to be primarily a site of economic statistics by country, they threw out all Soviet statistics as lies - a perfectly rational decision. Nevertheless, even Wikipedia's strikingly incomplete list of Nobel Prize Laureates by Country would have shown the omission. I cannot agree to the inclusion of this passage with this source; it would be academic fraud. Septentrionalis 20:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. You are right about that source. I changed to another one. See figure 2 in the link above. Compare for example the US, 250 million people in 1989, with the whole of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 400 million people. Ultramarine 16:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This source does not contain actual figures; I will go find one. I see no reason why Ultramarine's first source  should be dropped down the memory hole, however. Septentrionalis 19:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still waiting. Ultramarine 17:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that your continued lack of sources means that you accept my version. Ultramarine 15:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two weeks later, there is still no referenced evidence supporting their version. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. Ultramarine 23:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What's Ultramarine's problem with this sentence? I would think the dates could be tightened to be more like 1932-1958; but that's my only complaint.Septentrionalis 20:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that Septentrionalis has here misleadingly edited my text and split my original paragraph into two. See this diff . The removes the connection with the claim that the pure sciences saw remarkable progress in all Communist states. Ultramarine 08:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have adjusted the text; I  thought the qualification that biology did not advance in Lysenko's time was obvious. Septentrionalis 16:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Science

message: Your version excludes:
"Several of the Communist states directly supported claimed terrorist groups with money, training and safe bases. Examples include the PFLP, the Red Army Fraction, and the Japanese Red Army ."Ultramarine 05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV will require that we also include that other observers (including many non-communists) charge the United States with similar conduct.  See State_terrorism#United_States and Nicaragua_v._United_States for some discussion of this.  Robert A West 21:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Communist states and is obviously not the place to list for example the human rights violation of Nazi Germany. I propose changing the first sentence of the last paragraph of the human rights section to this: "Some supporters of communism find this approach simplistic, noting that humans rights violations such as executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both non-democratic Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist takeovers, and that later the opposing capitalist states also committed some human rights violations, like state terrorism" Ultramarine 15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See #A modest proposal, below. Septentrionalis 15:48, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: In practical logic, nearly all criticisms are relative criticisms.  You have to show either that someone else who was similarly-situated did better, or that the problem exposes a contradiction.  Even then, since all real-world systems have contradictions, one has to show that the contradiction is especially bad.  Robert A West 05:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Crimes are not relative. Crimes by other persons cannot justify new crimes, but maybe put them into perspective, as already stated in the article. The support for terrorism should be mentioned, and we have a paragraph for the perspective. Wikpedia should not hide arguments. Ultramarine 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorism 

message: Your version excludes:
"However, this defense can also be criticized. Alexander Solzhenitsyn argues in his book Gulag Archipelago that the living conditions and death rates of the inmates in the Soviet era Gulags were much worse than those of the Tsarist era Katorgas. The worst crop failure of late Tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths, while famines under both Lenin and Stalin caused many millions of deaths ."Ultramarine 05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most sources give 5 million deaths for famine during Lenin's regime  and a similar number for famine during Stalin's regime . I see no reason for excluding the last sentence. Ultramarine 04:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that you silence and lack of opposing sources mean that you accept my version. Ultramarine 15:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  There were human rights violation before the Communists in Communist states 

message: Your version excludes
*Google Directory
*:Of course it does; it is not Wikipedia's business to do for the reader what she can do for herself; see Wikipedia:external links.
:::This may be valid, although I do not think that it can be easily found if one does not know of its existence, However, I can accept removing this. Ultramarine 16:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many other Communist states besides Lithuania are mentioned. Ultramarine 12:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: *Matthew White's summary of different estimates Note that only some of numbers are totals for the Communist states.
**And it is, for that reason, off topic. Septentrionalis
*How many did the Communist regimes murder?
**Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917
**Table: Communist democide by nation
**Graph: Communist democide compared to total for world
**Graph: Communist democide divied into Genocide, Deportations, Massacres, and Camp/Prisons Ultramarine 05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My version only has one book reference from Rummel, the others two are not specifically about Communist states. Three of the links goes to graphs and tables. There are only two links that goes to actual textual articles. Anyhow, Rummel is the only scholar who has the details of his research available on the net. Therefore, they are very significant links. What policy are you referring to when you want remove very relevant external links? Ultramarine 08:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, come to think of it, this is a corollary of balance. Septentrionalis 20:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, what Wikipedia policy are you refering to?Ultramarine 15:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Online estimates of total Communist democide=

message: Every criticism from my version ( is the latest Ultramarine 15:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot tell what this is trying to say; neither can the reader. Please summarize each paragraph into a sentence below. Septentrionalis 22:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I can tell, this section existed to knock down poorly-sourced defenses of the form: "This isn't real communism."   Nearly all of this appears to be addressed, in more readable form, under Criticisms of communism#Communist and Left Critique of Communist States.  That section needs better sourcing as well, but that should not be difficult.  Robert A West 23:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected to my most recent version before page protection above. Ultramarine 15:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: We cam add something like that. I assume that your long silence and lack of opposing sources means that accept the rest of the criticisms. Ultramarine 15:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I have updated with more references and corrections here . Please state what you claim is incorrect. Ultramarine 02:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One week later, there is still no reply. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. Ultramarine 04:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of the Communist states for Marxist theory

message: Your version does not include:
"In the Soviet Union in 1989 there was rationing of meat and sugar. The average intake of red meat for a Soviet citizen was half of what it had been for a subject of the Czar in 1913. Blacks in apartheid South Africa owned more cars per capita. The only area of consumption in which the Soviets excelled was the ingestion of hard liquor. Two-thirds of the households had no hot water, and a third had no running water at all. According to the government paper, Izvestia, a typical working class family of four was forced to live for 8 years in a single 8x8 foot room, before marginally better accommodation became available. The housing shortage was so acute that at all times 17% of Soviet families had to be physically separated for want of adequate space. A third of the hospitals had no running water and the bribery of doctors and nurses to get decent medical attention and even amenities like blankets in Soviet hospitals was not only common, but routine. The average welfare mother in the United States received more income in a month, than the average Soviet worker could earn in a year. ." Ultramarine 05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to Ultramarine putting this in. It will probably be edited for length, and to point out that bribery of doctors is routine many places. Septentrionalis 22:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I would prefer a paraphrase to the extended quotation.  This will give the opportunity to tie it into points raised above and below.  I congratulate Ultramarine on realizing that books, as well as peer-reviewed papers, are valid sources.  Robert A West 22:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please state your suggested text, so we can discuss it. Ultramarine 16:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's your quotation, so I was leaving the honor to you.  I have only a few moments today, so I'll come up with a version tomorrow evening, unless someone beats me to it.  Robert A West 17:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that your continued silence and lack of proposed alternatives means that accept my version. Ultramarine 15:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Two weeks later, there is still no alternative version. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. Ultramarine 04:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Living standards

message: Your version excludes the referenced criticism of Marx rejection of human rights. Explain.  Ultramarine 23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights

message: Your version excludes the referenced criticism of the Marxist stages of history and the Marxist class analysis. Explain.  Ultramarine 23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical analysis 

message: We can include a section called something like "Dubious criticisms" -or "debatable", "specious" ??
This would include the following:
*Criticisms of the Communist states for acting like many other countries
*Criticisms of China and the Soviet Union for acting like Great Powers
*Criticisms of the Communists for not having instituted communism (which is already discussed)
*The whole comparison controversy
*And fraudulent or misleading criticisms from the White claims of the nationalization of women to the present day.for example
In the process, this can discuss most of the specific criticisms Ultramarine wants.
(I think Dean Swift would approve.)
Septentrionalis 16:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A modest proposal

message: There should be  more on Left non-Communist criticism, although I'm not sure there would be any new arguments. A history? Orwell, Koestler, Gide,  Norman Thomas, Paul Goodman.... Septentrionalis 16:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A quite serious proposal

message: There are two kinds of changes to the collaborative text which I would regard as grounds for summary reversion:
*Massive deletions without preliminary discussion and some agreement.
*Insertion of material deprecated by consensus. 
Ultramarine's reverts have been both. Septentrionalis 22:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free to edit

message: In this case, silence does not imply consent to Ultramarine's petty insistences on having exactly his own text (no matter who he has cut-and-paste it from). There is a famous routine about "When you assume", from Ernie Kovacs, IIRC, which sums up the situation. Most of the disputes above, are not, despite Ultramarine's yelling, factual disputes; they are disputes about NPOV, topicality and style. He has answered none of these. Where they are accuracy disputes, he has not demonstrated the position he chooses to believe. 
Silence in response to his postings, therefore, has been, and will continue to be, a sign that he is continuing simply to argue, but is saying nothing material. In no case does it imply consent to "his' version, whether it is advocacy, tirade, bad writing, or simple falsehood. Septentrionalis 13:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that it is the run-up to the Labor Day holiday in the U.S., and that may temporarily limit some editors' ability to participate actively.  I am relieved that no editor of this article seems to have been caught in Katrina.  Robert A West 22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ultramarine's assumptions

message: Would it be possible to create a number of pages that replace Criticisms of communism. These might be: Criticisms of Communist states, Criticisms of Marxism, Communism and communism.BobFromBrockley 17:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically possible, of course; but I doubt it would help. This page is already a splinter from Communism. Dividing it further would only induce more repetition, since most critics, and some criticisms, fall into more than one of these suggested articles. What this article needs, however, is for a single disruptive editor to learn to Play with Others; and that, since this is not his web-log, policy requires that this article discuss criticisms of communism (and Communism) rather than being one.   Septentrionalis 19:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The real goal would be to integrate a summary of this page into the communism page.--Silverback 07:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create more than one page 

message: The following paragraphs both stood in the article.
:'Restrictions on emigration are widely seen as a mechanism for suppressing dissent. The Berlin wall was one of the most famous examples of this, but North Korea still imposes a total ban on emigration (reported on PBS's program Frontline) and Cuba's restrictions are routinely criticized by the Cuban-American community. 
:The escape valve of last resort from repressive regimes is emigration, but the communist states were notorious for violently preventing and severely punishing attempts to escape. Individualists will argue that the anti-democratic nature of these regimes is perhaps best revealed by this prevention of even allowing citizens to "vote with their feet". 
Mihnea deleted the second paragraph, on the ground that it was entirely redundant with the first, and that the value-judgment of the last sentence is common to all anti-communists, not just individualists. I disagree on both points. 
While the paragraphs should be merged, they are distinct thoughts. And the view that the most anti-democratic thing about Communism was the refusal of emigration (as opposed to, say, one-party elections) is a specific PoV, which I believe is best called individualism. Perhaps should have been struck, as above.  
I prefer to discuss this here, rather than in edit summaries. Septentrionalis 17:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Individualists, as Silverback is often fond of pointing out, don't think very highly of democracy. Thus, I do not believe that the individualist criticism would focus on communist states being anti-democratic (to be honest, I'm not exactly sure what the individualist criticism is, because "individualists" is a vague term which could mean almost anyone as long as no qualifiers are used; I can think of several opposing ideologies claiming to represent the One True Individualism). It would probably be more accurate to say: "Individualists argue that these restrictions on emigration are one of the most repressive features of communist states." However, we still need to say which individualists we are talking about. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with democracies, is that they don't necessarily protect minorities, democratic republics are better at that.  The problem with communist democracies, is that they aren't democracies.--Silverback 08:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Emigration

message: Is historial "materialism" the correct term?  Shouldn't it be historical "determinism"?  Of course, "determinism" would make the implications of  failed predictions all the more serious for the theory.  I thought the determinism was a central article of the faith.  It gives hope to those who want what is said to be "determined", and, if believed, weakens the will of those who would resist the "inevitable", and justifies the severe oppressive measures as resulting in a net shortening of the process and cost in human lives and misery to get to the final result, the second coming of the stateless society.--Silverback 09:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is correct; see historical materialism. H.m. is one branch of historical determinism (although whether it is determinism in the strictest sense can be argued).  Septentrionalis 22:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory'' 

message: Why does Ultramarine remove Marx's prediction that capitalism would become more tyrannical as the Revolution approached, speaking of unjusitfied deletions? Septentrionalis 23:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not for now find a good reference for this. If you have one, I will add it. Ultramarine 00:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I see no evidence of a request for protection of this article, and there is no need to prejudge the outcome of the RfA, especially as it relates to this article, which was progressing just fine.--Silverback 13:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see quite what the reason for protection is.  I see that there may be a problem user (the subject of the RFA), but why protect the page?  If the problem is a single editor and not a larger edit war, I don't think protection is a good way to deal with it.  Better to block a single problem editor (if that is indeed the problem) than to protect an article from all edits.   Friday (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no policy under which he could be blocked, since he's careful to avoid breaking WP:3RR, and even if he were blocked temporarily I'm sure he would just come back later anway. These edit wars have been going on for months. Right now, I'm just patiently waiting for Arbcom to resolve the issue. In the mean time, I want the edit war stopped. --causa sui talk 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He is careful to not violate policy, unlike yourself.  You also forget to note that he was not just edit warring like the others.  He was continuing to improve the article, citing sources, and responding to input.--Silverback 09:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...while refusing to contribute to the collaborative version and removing any edits made by other users on his version. Ultramarine was claiming ownership of this article, and still is. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It doesn't look to me at all like the problem is a single editor. Arker 20:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, there is no policy under which he could be blocked, without an Arbcom ruling. --causa sui talk 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've requested unprotection of this article. 

message: Okay. So what exactly is the difference between the two versions? Please discuss their respective merits here and work out a compromise. Radiant_>|< 17:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the discussions here Talk:Criticisms_of_communism#List_of_proposed_changes_II. Ultramarine 17:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultramarine has declined to accept compromise in those discussions, and has introduced some other very peculiar claims into his solitary edits. More seriously, his edit is a criticism of Communism, instead of discussing such criticisms. Septentrionalis 19:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: False, others have contributed to "my" version which is extermely well-referenced. Septentrionalis version contains deliberate factual inaccuracies, numerous NPOV violations and unverifiable original research. Ultramarine 19:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Constructiveness