Talk:Communism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Recent reverts

...requires greater rationality or wisdom for the planners, or voters, or workers' council members, than is consistent with the bounded rationality of the species.

If this wording is seen to be imperfect, the concept must be expressed. One of the obvious failings of communism is that not only are humans not morally capable of intituting equality, they are also intellectually incapable. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a problem is the phrase bounded rationality, which comes from a generally antipathetic ideological position, and also implies that communism is somehow inherently naive and/or not humanly possible.Grant65 (Talk) 13:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism comes from "critics," see further discussion under that subheading below. Every ideological subject in wiki has a "criticism of" heading, as do scientific theories such as Darwinism, etc. And the criticism expressed there alwats comes from "antipathetic...positions" because that's where one would expect criticism to come from. Why is that a problem?

--Christofurio 20:11, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

If humans are not morally capable of "intituting" equality, then what could be? Equality in this sense is not even well-defined, and given a moral definition of fairness (of which there are a few contenders), humans could certainly approach the goal as they do any other.--Csmcsm 02:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps they could approach equality for themselves as individuals, but it would be more difficult to decide for others. Consider how individual the decision of whether to work an extra hour is, or to take if off, or to volunteer an hour. Prices, in the context of freedom, can aid in the decision, but ultimately the decision is individual. Equality is easy to apply if all individuals are identical, but the evidence is that even "identical" twins, aren't.--Silverback 07:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really have to stop using that 'twins' line. Physical makeup has nothing to do with equality (or equity, which is what we should be talking about). Certainly any normative view on either would be better than what capitalism has achieved so far.--Csmcsm 20:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism isn't done yet. Equality in poverty is better than inequality in wealth if one accepts the norm of envy, but why be so materialistic. Do you have any evidence for the certainty you assert, I doubt it can be achieved short of a tautology?--Silverback 22:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is clarified as a criticism. And of course communism is inherently naive and/or not humanly possible, thats the point! ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Sam. Thanks for the support. Criticism of an ideological position often cocomes from an "antipathetic ideological position"! What a shock. The NPOV thing to do is to state the various antipathetic positions fairly, and some of our communist friends seem averse to having that done here. --Christofurio 17:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The criticism is so naive I don't understand how such clever people as you, Sam can fall for it. Please explain how communism requires greater rationality for voters, council members, planners, etc. than, say, for President of the US of A, the SEC commission and Federal Reserve?

Let us forget for a second that the article is about communist ideology, not about its communist state. I understand that much of criticism comes from the thought that communists were planning everything, and this is humanly impossible, no doubt. But this is a naive college-grade understanding of communism, similar to the rumors that communists have everything common: common wives, common shoes and common toothbrushes. Another misunderstanding is that plans were something chiseled in stone. Of course there were not. They were always corrected through the course of the time. Sitll, please, this is not criticism of communism. This is criticism af any centrally planned economy, and hence belongs to the latter article.

Still another point, who told you that in communist state everything was planned for best of all people? That would require inhuman amount of planning for sure. In Soviet Union the planning was for good of the state in the first turn. People were treated as livestock; bare minimality. Mikkalai 19:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten and don't plan to forget that this article is about communist ideology, and I've done nothing to try to change the focus to communist states. The point, though, is that communism as described in the rest of this very article would require a sort of planning that would supplant markets and for-profit exchanges, rather than the sort that works through that medium. Most actual "communist" states give up on this idea pretty quickly -- it didn't take Lenin himself very long to retreat into the New Economic Policy. When I say such things, I often hear, "Oh yes, but next time will be different, we'll have majority rule." Sorry, but the problem is with the agenda. (There are other problems as well, having to do with the dynamics of revolutions, but that is the problem targeted by this criticism.) And, yes, this criticism belongs also in other articles. It doesn't follow it ought to be deleted from this one. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well the correlation between a command economy and communism is obviously that all prominent Communist states (before liberalization) have implemented a command economy. There has never been a country where the final classless communist phase was achieved and the government lost all its form, as Marx puts it. Trey Stone 03:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And one more: about alleged imposibility of total planning. If it were so, modern microchips could not possibly have beed designed and you wouldn't have this wonderful computer to type your naive arguments in. Ever heard about hierarchical approach to compex tasks? Mikkalai 19:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The distinction remains between planning within the context created by market exchanges and planning deprived of that context. You might spend a lot of time and effort devising a new and better microchip -- you must eventually sibmit it to the ultimate test of whether other freely contracting parties want to invest in its mass production, and their decision will have a lot to do with whether other freely contracting parties will want to buy it. Planning as a way of disrupting that higgle-haggle is uniformly a disaster, for reasons at whicht he critique in this article has hinted. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that few people have heard of "bounded rationality" and even fewer would agree that it is an accurate reflection of human beings. Maybe I should try inserting a bit of kitsch marxist jargon, just to see how long it lasts, on the Friedrich von Hayek page. That would be analagous to this new passage. Sam and Christofurio have illustrated their concept of "NPOV" remarkably well I think. Grant65 (Talk) 01:30, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that I cease struggling with this addition. It dawned upon me that it perfectly shows the brain damage of the "critics". Mikkalai 03:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good to see the depth of your commitment to civility. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

As opposed to those brilliant Communist theorists (whose favored states only collapsed due to imperialist pressure) Trey Stone 03:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marx had no chance to favor communist Mongolia and China (which is going to kick someone's ass yet). Mikkalai 03:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Communist in political structure, reformist in economic structure. Trey Stone 04:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, as communism is fundamentally an economic system, and less than 50% of the Chinese economy is owned by the state — a smaller proportion than in many OECD countries in the 1970s — China isn't even socialist, let alone communist any more. But maybe it will be again. For the moment it's a capitalist dictatorship of the neo-bourgeoisie ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

And oh, some bright kiddo wrote in comments: revert to Spade. punishment is not an intrinsic part of communist ideology. I guess in his study of communist ideology he didn't reach the chapter about dictatorship of the proletariat yet. Mikkalai

Perhaps that was written in response to whomever wrote this inanity "Lacking economic interests, there are two other major incentives: fear of punishment (as in slavery) and common benevolence of people (which is disputable)." I'm not sure what system or ideology was being talked about, but it was apparently written by a person unfamiliar with power, sex, status or any other of the basis of freshman psych, advertising or anthropology.--Silverback 05:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Sex as driving force of economic development! Dare to write a wikiarticle on this? Mikkalai 06:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a language barrier, you brought up non-economic incentives, or did you mean something different by "lacking economic interests". Your concept, whatever it was, was not stated very clearly in english, although you apparently don't see that.--Silverback 08:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You got me here. I was trying to correct the phrase "that it would remove incentives necessary for productivity". As you pointed out himself, there are plenty of various incentives, and it is ridiculous to think that communism removed all of them. You are so involved in proving that I am wrong that you don't see that the phrasing lacks merit, to say it civilisedly. But like I said, I will no longer edit this piece, an example of brain damage of critics. Mikkalai 18:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have two things to say here. #1, that central planning isn't supposed to be the end result in the communist ideology. That is socialism. And that anarchists often disregard this at all. #2: Dictatorship of the proleteriat, and punishment is also in itself socialism. Marxist-Leninism proposes using socialism as a interim period between capitalism and communism, so the concept that punishment and dictatorship of the proleteriat being associated with communism isn't that wrong, just that its meant as a intermediate measure, not the end measure. -- Natalinasmpf 22:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The slavemasters whip

Please see Talk:Communism#Human_nature. This ridiculous false dicotomy between "fear of the whip" and "common benevolence" (what the heck is that?) as forms of incentives is insane. Please look up reinforcement, Operant conditioning, and economics. Fear of punishment is not a major factor in the economies of the west (outside of prison, perhaps), and I think its easier to describe say.. Pol Pots communism as having been a slavery-based economy than even the pre-civil war united states south (even ancient egypt or feudalism had alot more to the economy than fear as an incentive, and not only financialy). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 08:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you on about? And what does it have to do with exogenous, anachronistic and hostile RCT concepts/jargon being used in an article about communism? Grant65 (Talk) 10:02, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

There was no dichotomy. Even less it was applied to the modern West. These were examples of other possible incentives, in addition to economic. The sole problem is my bad command of English. Sorry for confusion. Next time when dealing with complicated issues I will begin with a proposal at the talk page. Mikkalai 18:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear what I'm on about, and it has nothing to do w anything "exogenous" ;). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human nature

To such objections, communists reply that human nature is misrepresented by capitalists. For example, under slavery, slave owners said blacks were lazy and stupid and that whippings were necessary for productivity. Thus, communists say under what they consider capitalist wage slavery, that the same type of arguments are made as an excuse for the capitalists to expropriate surplus value from workers. This fails to take into account the role of reinforcers in Behavioral psychology, and confuses punishing reinforcers (whippings) with positive reinforcers (money).

I think starvation could be considered a punishing reinforcer. The slavemaster never threatened to starve his property. And wouldn't the food and shelter provided to the slave be a positive reinforcer just as money to buy food and shelter be to the wage slave? If capitalism was all positive reinforcers, the enclosure of the commons would never have been necessary. Ruy Lopez 19:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I pointed out the weakness of this section, but decided since it was such a poor argument that it was likely not verifiable, and was probably just an idea one of the editors had. If someone can cite it, they can feel free to restore it. My critique based on behavioural psychology certainly will be finding its way back into the text, as lack of proper incentive (positive reinforcement) is one of the more glaring logical errors of Communism (right up there with atheism). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you are most welcome to re-insert that famous Straw man into the article. But rest assured that I will also insert the 4 different communist refutations of it (yes, that argument is flawed in four different ways, and one of the counter-arguments mentions the fact that communism does, in fact, offer positive reinforcement to the people participating in it - while also relying on human rationality). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

?how is human psychology a straw man? And how does communism reward superior performance? Isn't that in contridiction to "to each according to his need"? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Sam, "superior performance" was both needed and rewarded in the Soviet/Maoist-type systems because they started from low bases of economic development. A corollary of this is that those underdeveloped societies were never communist in the sense that Marx himself understood communism. The societies which Marx actualy had in mind were the most developed countries. (The reasons why the first successful revolutions did not occur in the developed nations are a whole different debate.) Although all basic needs, and a wide range of consumer goods/services, would be available in a truly communist society, achievers would still be rewarded by accolades/ fame/etc. Of course some people always want more of any material thing than they can ever use, but as Engels said, in the higher phase of communism, they would simply be "laughed at". (Presumably because of the operant conditioning of communism *LOL*) I know it's hard to get your head around the idea that we already live in a state of abundance, albeit one scrambled and disfigured by (economic) class relations, but I suggest you think about it.Grant65 (Talk) 10:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your reply is nonsensical. We live in a state of abundance because we have a powerful economic base, derived from capitalism. I am in Germany, and while the country on the whole is well off, the eastern half had (and still has) a serious disadvantage due to having been ruined by communism. And if Marxism supplies "operant conditioning" of "fame" instead of cash rewards, why were even ballerina's and Olympic athletes (positions rewarded largely by fame in the west) especially well paid in communism, while "collective" farm laborers were periodically starved to death w artificial famines regardless of how hard they worked, often on the very land which had been stolen from them by the "egalitarianism" of communism. I think that's the sort of fame they would have preferred to do without, and has little to do with either business psychology or operant conditioning. 10 pounds of propaganda doesn't buy you one pound of bread. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree with both of you, we live in a time of scarcity. Demand for goods and services would be much higher if the prices were set to zero, and assuming the supply would be insufficient at that price, what goods and services were available would have to be rationed by some other means.--Silverback 10:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. First, scarcity and abundance are relative. Second, economics is all about the allocation of resources.Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It is about the allocation of scarce resources. "Abundant" resources in the economic sense, don't need to be allocated.--Silverback 12:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And your point is? BTW, do you mind not inserting your responses in the middle of other people's posts? IMO it makes the page hard to read.Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

My point economists are concerned with scarcity, if something must be allocated it is still scarce, even if some consider it relatively abundant. It is part of the basic definition of modern economics and price theory. BTW, I don't mind not inserting, but I disagree and find it more a more readable way to respond to particular points in multi-paragraph passages, since the response can be put immediately after the point. But as we have just illustrated, the value of that is subjective, you find it less valuable even though it took me more labor to produce.--Silverback 17:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the DDR was never communist in any meaningful sense, because the system there was exogenous ;-), i.e. it existed because of a lot of men wearing fur hats, carrying burpguns. Unless, that is, you think the KPD would have won a free election, or been swept to power in a proletarian revolution in East Germany in, say, 1946 without the Soviet presence? No, I thought not. Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We do not live in a time of scarcity. The major problem capitalism has is overproduction (what some call underconsumption, which is a different side of the same coin). This is not a wacky left-wing theory, pretty much everyone agrees with this as it is so blindingly obvious, although the *causes* are disputed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Jack, what's your take on when this economy is going to turn around?

WELCH: I think that you have a telecom shut down, you have a high tech slowdown, you have a lot of capacity. So you got weak pricing power.... You?ve got globalization. You've got global capacity everywhere...There are plants all over China that just built 20 million things that are coming in to this or that, so pricing pressure is what we're facing. The reason why jobs are tough is not volume. The reason why jobs are tough is there's no profitability.

luke} A lot of people think that human nature is inherantly greedy and that is the main arguement that communism can't work. i disagree, human nature can change. i refuse to believe that the British binge drinking or the US gun crime cultures are there forever and cannot change. Lenin turned the entire russian anti-semitic attitudes around in a few short revolutionary years, unfortunately Stalin reverted to it back.

-- former GE CEO Jack Welch on Hardball[1]

The economists' notion of scarcity has nothing to do one way or another with the sort of over-production that Welch was talking about there. Your confusion is also indicated by the phrase "time of scarcity". Nobody maintains that the early 21st century is uniquely a time of scarcity -- the point rather, is that every time has been a time of scarcity, because demands are capable of infinite expansion, supplies are not. --68.9.148.204 16:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the italicised section in the passage below:

Objectivists and other laissez-faire capitalists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature". More specifically they make the claim that communism denies individuals the means necessary for their survival. So from an objectivist perspective the concept of "human nature" does not refer to a persistent attribute of human psychology but rather a very real physical necessity. It comes from the belief that a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes. And if the fruits of his labour are taken from him against his will, he will have no incentive to work. Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, mass behavior will change accordingly.

I have an idea of the point that someone is trying to make here, but it doesn't come over well or NPOV. The idea that a worker can enjoy the profit from his hard work in a given capitalist relations of production is strongly libertarian POV. To say simply that a worker should enjoy those fruits isn't an objection to communism, but rather exactly what communists argue (see Labour theory of value. This contribution also mixes up communism as a future system of global common ownership with communism as the system implemented by self-declared communist parties. And yes, of course you can argue that they end up the same in the end, but others can argue the opposite... The addition also doesn't segue into the rest of the paragraph that was there to begin with. I wasn't able to work out a way of rephrasing the point properly in a way that avoided these problems, so have removed the section for now. Mattley 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's very bad to remove the whole thing before discussing it. Sure, the paragraph was pretty badly written. But the criticism it makes is valid, and is indeed often made. What you claim is "libertarian POV" is actually a pretty widely held view, usually called meritocracy. It argues that those that work harder get a higher salary. This is not at all the Communist point of view. You can argue one is better than the other, but it is POV to remove a valid and widely claimed criticism. Luis rib 19:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib, I am sorry you think we should allow badly written, ambiguous and POV statements to remain in articles whilst we try to work out exactly what the anonymous contributor meant to say. I take the opposite view. As I said, I wasn't able to work out a way of rephrasing it appropriately, but I did take the trouble to explain at some length what I thought was wrong with it for the benefit of anyone who might want to correct those failings and restore the comment in some other form. Perfectly reasonable behaviour, I would think. Read back over the above. The part I object to as reflecting a libertarian POV is the part that states that this particular criticism 'comes from the belief that a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes'. Since objectivists argue for capitalist relations of production, this statement effectively endorses the view that it is possible for workers to enjoy the fruits of their labour within capitalism and rejects a different and opposite view, embodied in the Labour theory of value, which has it that capitalism is based on not returning to workers the full value of their labour. I never argued that the former POV was not widely held, but rather that it is POV. We are endorsing a particular POV there. To be NPOV that comment would need to be restated in order to make it apparent that it was a POV that was being reflected, rather than simply a statement of fact. But the problems with the above contribution go beyond that, and beyond the issues I noted in my earlier contribution. Even if it were established that the statement that 'a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes' was a meritocratic argument, even if it were identified as a particular POV, it would still be an arguement that surely did not apply exclusively to communism but to any society that practised progressive taxation. What about this comment 'they make the claim that communism denies individuals the means necessary for their survival.' What? How does it do that? Where do they claim this and why? And this one: 'the concept of "human nature" does not refer to a persistent attribute of human psychology but rather a very real physical necessity.' What on earth does that mean? It isn't at all obvious from the comment itself. So, given all of that, I'm not making any apologies for removing the passages in question. Mattley 20:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand your reasons better now. I tried to change the human nature part a bit. Each paragraph shows both sides' views now. Also added meritocracy, including your comment that taxation could also achieve it (although I personnally don't believe it). I think it's more NPOV now, but feel free to change stuff. I also deleted the second part of the violence section, which was a critique on capitalism and had nothing to do with communism. It should be added to the capitalism page. Luis rib 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

communism and economics

The basic criticism that it would be impossible to plan a communist society is fine. Someone wants it here, and it belongs here.

Nonetheless, it is replete with a total lack of understanding of Marxism, communism and so forth. These critics of communism know next-to-nothing about Marxism or communism, as I have stated before.

The second and third sentences are: "Theoretically, in a market system, scarce skills and resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands. Without an efficient market system, prices can send the wrong signals to consumers and planners, resulting in decisions that don't reflect the choices they would make if they knew the actual costs and competing demands for those resources."

First of all the idea that "scarce...resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands" pertains to the capitalist system, not the "market" system. If one looks at the life of a commodity as production -> exchange -> consumption, how is the exchange/market system of the USSR different than the US? A worker goes into a store and exchanges rubles (or dollars) for a loaf of bread. They are both market systems (of course, it should go without saying that the USSR socialist system would be different than a communist system).

Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Regards, the USSR, the difference is how the price is set, when prices are set artificially low resources are wasted, such as demand being so high that people have to spend considerable time in queues and the supply running out before all demand is satisfied. Another example was the price of clothing being set so low for new clothing that consumers used them as rags for cleaning autos or floors, since unimproved fabric was not any cheaper, and the clothing price did not reflect the resources used to improve the fabric.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being that "economics" is a word invented by right-leaning people in the field studying what everyone at one time called political economy, in a narrow sense economics is the idea that the study of (political) economy is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. However, economics is more often used in the broader sense. Probably the best question I could ask that would show your first sentence ("Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources") is incorrect is this - what was economics the study of prior to the publication of Gossen's work in 1854? Because absolutely no one was studying the "allocation of scarce resources" prior to that.

How is prices being set too low or too high different in the USSR and the US? I read the Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning and it said Wal-Mart had said it set prices too high in the last month. So setting the price too high in the US or USSR was the same thing (of course, the word price had slightly different meanings in different economies). No one would disagree that errors are made and capitalist or socialist systems sometimes misprice something. Another example would be a computer error pricing a gallon of milk at 10 cents in a supermarket. And socialist economies made errors like this as well. But I think we are talking about systematic problems during normal operations here, not the occasional error that pops up.

You neglect the point, the problems I pointed out were an imbalance of supply and demand because the communist system set the price with some other goal in mind than balancing the two. The pricing errors of Walmart resulted in lost business and oversupply for their prices, they responded by lowering the price and altering their supply. In a communist system which sets prices by the labor theory of value, (not that the USSR did that), there could be an imbalance between supply and demand even though the price was set correctly according to the theory, therefore there is no correction to be made, fixing the problem by changing the price would be switching to a different theory of value.--Silverback 12:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the communist point of view, there is no such thing as the setting of a price. A price is known the minute the producer is finished creating the commodity, the price is the number of homogeneous necessary labor hours are congealed in the commodity. You can't "mis-price" something systematically, since there is no such thing as mispricing, really. You can produce a "commodity" that no one wants however. There can't be an imbalance between supply and demand since every exchange is equal, there can only be commodities produced that no one wants - something that happens in capitalism as well.

In fact, this would be less of a problem in a socialist/communist economy. In a capitalist economy, capitalists compete to sell commodities which people don't want. It's like musical chairs - there are more commodities produced than buyers. This is not a problem in socialist and communist economies, nothing creates conditions which would lead to overproduction. Without this competition, there can be more cooperation and more planning coordinating production for exchange (or in communism production for need). Ruy Lopez 13:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I think you may be implying another point about how prices act as triggers. But you didn't say so, so I responded to what you said.

As I said earlier, I think a lot of people here know little of these subjects. The idea that economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources didn't even begin to arise until 1854. Prior to that, another theory reigned, and many people still believe the original theory, not the new STV/marginalist one. It seems to me that a lot of people here don't disagree with the original theory, they don't even know it existed or the history of the theories that they themselves are describing. I feel my knowledge of these fields is inadequate, but several Wikipedia contributors on this page and others seem to know less about this than what even I. Ruy Lopez 10:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, that this is how capitalist systems works is just of one various competing theories. Of course, it is the one capitalists within the capitalists system prefer (although not necessarily workers). The early bourgeois economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc. certainly did not believe this, and in fact shared Marx's view that value came from labor, that prices were determined by labor time and so forth. In fact, this was the accepted view when Marx began his studies and Marx agreed with it. There really was no argument against this until Hermann Heinrich Gossen published The Development of the Laws of Exchange among Men and of the Consequent Rules of Human Action, the ideas of which were fleshed out by the subjective theory of value school (marginalists). In fact, Marxism (and all of classical economics prior to HH Gossen and friends) is counterposed to this new theory of value.

Anyhow, that's just the second and third sentence. As I said, the basic ideas of this section are fine, the criticism that communism is not plannable, but STV (marginalists) ideas are just that - ideas, theories, not fact and should be marked as such. So I will be rewriting this section. Ruy Lopez 09:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you would explain how communist planning is done on a large scale without a state, how consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized, etc. I've no problem with you labeling the criticism as theory, albeit, a well developed theory that is able to explain a lot of the behavior of prices, consumers and suppliers as well as the problems and inefficiencies that sometimes occur. In your rewrite it would help if you could criticize communism from each of what you see as the competing theories of capitalism, so we can evaluate their perspectives. --Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marx said he did not write recipes for cookshops of the future, and communists generally do not spell out or dictate how things would be done in the future. However, in the past and present communists can point to existing models of say large scale planning, like the creation of the Linux operating system (the original author of which had a father who was a prominent communist). So-called primitive communist societies are other examples, as are things like Amish barn-raisings and so forth.

I've been more interested in what I would call misstatements about capitalism, or theories about capitalism which I do not share. Consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized in a capitalist economy as in a socialist economy - a product that can't be exchanged is not a commodity. Production decision makers in a capitalist economy and socialist economy would draw the same conclusions from the same data. STV/marginalism is certainly a well-developed theory. Anti-capitalists perceive many holes in it though. For example, the theory of marginal utility was developed to explain prices. Except prices are what display what the marginal utility of a commodity are. This is tautological - marginal utility explains prices which explain what the marginal utility of something is which is reflected in its price and so on and so forth. There are other holes in the theory which I won't go into at the moment, as they'd take some time to explain.

For example, from the anti-capitalist view, if inflation, the value of gold whatnot remains stable, then the price of a commodity is obvious. A capitalist should know exactly what the price of a commodity is upon production without any guesswork as it is very obvious. The *only* thing he doesn't know is if it will sell (e.g. be exchanged) or not. The idea that the commodity would be put on the market and the price raised or lowered "according to the market" is seen as laughable by anti-capitalists. It is a completely different theory about how production and markets work. Ruy Lopez 11:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the first paragraph is fairly straightforward, but the next three paragraphs having to do with the skyscraper are vague and make little sense. It is about how in capitalism, a skyscraper can be planned better than in communism. There are three paragraphs leading up to an argument and then - no argument. The last paragraph is leading up to this non-existent argument: "Critics contend that the implementation of communism in the sense described above would involve supplanting precisely these market and contract conditions that make planning possible. It would be planning instead of haggling, rather than planning within the context of haggling. That is what they contend is not practicable." OK, we have an example of a skyscraper, a description of how capitalists build a skyscraper and then a simple assertion that STVers don't think communists could build a skyscraper. The reason why is not given.

I know Amish people get together and do barn-raisings in basically a communist manner - each gives according to ability and each gets according to need. Of course, a skyscraper is more complex than a barn, but if one looks back 75 years, the tallest "skyscraper" in the world was less than 800 feet high, and most of what has enabled taller buildings to be built have been advances in engineering, and the factors leading to one wanting to go to the trouble of building such a large building. Beyond the architect, building a skyscraper is not that complex - you build a floor, then build another floor, and just keep going up. Nonetheless, all of this is more of an opinion than a reason. I see no argument made here. Ruy Lopez 10:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticism Comes From Critics

I'm responsible for the skyscraper example -- inspired by a dialogue with Mihnea on another article's talk page. The point, here, isn't that communists can't make one, but that the when and where of that resource allocation would be arbitrary and likely misdirected in the absense of market signals. (I would expect that the Amish anarcho-communist barn raisings respond to less formal signals than either a central planners' or a capitalistic skyscraper. The informality is affordable, because a barn is fairly easy to dismantle, the wood can be re-used elsewhere. Dismantling a skyscraper is a different matter.) Of course, communists might take the Stakhanovite approach -- "the more skyscrapers, the better, because it embodies our labor," -- and end up with empty buildings blotting out the sky and a shortage of steel, etc. that would have been very useful elsewhere. When you change the subject and start talking about diamond prices you've lost me. That's releant to articles about the labor theory of value, etc. -- here we're simply trying to state a common objection to communism to make this article complete.

Of course, planners might do a survey to find out whether there is enough demand for office space in a certain location to put a skyscraper there. But that concedes the point that its value comes from that demand, not from congealed labor -- and the survey data make more sense within a price system which includes comparative rents, etc., than in the absense of such signals anyway, which of course is the point. --Christofurio 16:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why is everyone saying I am changing the subject to diamonds, I am not the one who mentioned scarce resources.

I am glad of the point you made in the second paragraph as I have to explain less now. I would actually prefer to use the example of a cruise ship to a skyscraper as I feel it is simpler and less confusing, but I'll stick with the skyscraper example for now. Yes, lets say the planners would do a survey and see there was enough demand for office space. Let's even say that the skyscraper builders even got people to agree to pay them when the skyscraper was delivered. Of course the object has to be in demand, I've already said that. I don't think you understand LTV, this is in Capital Volume I, Chapter I. A commodity is not a commodity unless it is exchanged, and it won't be exchanged unless there is a demand for it. I can go into my room and paint a bad painting all day, and if no one wanted to buy it it would not be a commodity, it would just be something I worked on for myself (which no one wanted). Work people do for themselves, and not for exchange, is not a commodity. If I knit myself a sweater, I have not made a commodity as I've done it for my own use. If no one wants the skyscraper, it is not a commodity, it was something people built for fun or whatever. If people want it, then it is a commodity.

Communists think prices simply mask the homogeneous necessary labor time congealed in a commodity. So a price comparison in many ways is comparing a skyscraper or ship that takes 10,000 man-hours or person-hours to build, to a skyscraper or ship that takes 11,000 person-hours to build. The latter one would obviously be priced more. And if one is a William Levitt type who puts down buildings one after the other after the other, one has a pretty good idea what the homogenous necessary labor time to build such a building is ahead of time. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand the LTV very well. I don't think there's any reason to prove that to you, because the point here is simply to include a fair statement of a historically important objection to communism. You keep saying you don't want it to be here because it comes from the adversaries of communism. Of couse it does! And if you look at the "criticism" section of the article on anarcho-capitalism you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of that view. If you look at the "criticism" section of the articles on Darwinian evolution, you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of those views. And so forth. That is what a criticism section is for.

The claim that prices have information value concerns prices specifically. To the extent Marxists mean something else by "value" then "price," then they aren't really contradicting this point. Whatever you may want to say about value, price comes largely from market demand -- and that fact implies that it carries information about market demand. You say "communists think" differently. Okay. Most of the article is devoted to how communists think. Why should there not be, as there is elsewhere, a section for how the critics of communism think. Why is it an objection to any view on either side to say that communists and non-communists don't think the same way?

A few words more about skyscrapers. The problem I raised isn't the possibility that people would build a skyscraper for fun. It is the question of knowing whether the use of resources for this purpose rather than some other is optimal. You say nothing that gives me any reason to believe there is an alternative to a pricing system that would do this better. Any survey that would make any sense would be set against a background pricing system. Likewise with Levittown. The GIs came home to America after the war and wanted to get married, have kids, 'settle down' as the saying went. The building boom fed off such demand, and the housing prices that came about as a result thereof.

There was also statist interference in various ways. If we find Levittown to be a sub-optimal use of resources, I suggest that we might look at the planning implied in that interference. --Christofurio 13:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall objecting to the inclusion of any criticism except in the case where communism is confused with a socialist state. Other than that, I have simply pointed out criticisms were in the wrong sub-sections of the criticism section.

It wasn't, though. I was making various points in the human nature section because limits to rationality are as much an issue about human nature. Also, to the extent communism is supposed to be arrived at through a socialist route -- criticizing one is criticizing the other, and the distinction is pointless. Also, yopu've interpolated statements into every effort to state the Austrian criticism of communism in order to distract from any effort to get it fairly stated.

Suppose, for purposes of comparison, we were writing a passage about criticisms of Darwinism. I might write, "There are defenders of the views of Larmark, who believe that acquired characteristics can be inherited." Would it be fair for you to change that to this? "There are, though Darwinians disagree, defenders of the view of Larmark, with whom Darwinians disagree, who believe although Darwinians disagree that acquired characteristics can be inherited, although Darwinians disagree." Does that sound NPOV? AT what point are such continued interruptions of a point simply to state and restate and re-restate the mere fact of disagreement an unfair undermining of an effort to make a point that ought to be made? Frankly, I believe there is such a point and you have crossed it. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Price does not carry information about market demand, only exchange carries information about market demand. Price contains no information, the only case you can make for that is a price of zero contains information versus a non-zero price (from a 5 cent stick of gum to a million dollar house). Price is just a convulted method of expressing homoegenous necessary labor

time congealed in a commodity.

You are right in a sense about exchange, perhaps however, you were missing the implicit sense of prices as market prices set by exchanges in the market, not just the arbitrary price that someone might be asking or offering. The market price does carry information about demand. Of course. illiquid and non-commodity markets are less informative. But setting prices on labor alone will lead to very uneconomic decisions and lower levels of individual satisfaction, and less optimal macro-economic results in terms of gross product and efficiency. You would be wasting the medium of exchange (money) as a surrogate for measuring and assessing total resources, labor, and relative demand for them in informing individual distributed decision making. --Silverback 01:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not miss the idea that prices are set by exchange, I just disagree with it. The value of something is set the moment the commodity is finished being produced. The only question then is whether or not it is exchangable with something of equal value. If it's not, its not a commodity. It is just a completely different theory. In the Marxian theory, uneconomic decisions and sub-optimal macro-economic results come from a variety of sources, including capitalism's need to manufacture commodities which will not be exchangable. As I said, this actually isn't totally a Marxian theory, even GE CEO Jack Welch and many others have conceded this, or at least conceded all of the observations that would lead one to this conclusion. As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that? That's a very, very tenuous hypothesis as there is no way of measuring it, it is just based on a hypothesis from the conclusions of the other theory. And again, in your theory you claim prices somehow magically contain information on resources, labor and relative demand, but of course, you're unable to separate them into components since only the invisible hand of the marketplace knows. Marxian theory dispels with such mysticism - it deals just with what is known - will the commodity be exchangable? How much labor time went into creating the commodity? Natural resources have no value other than the labor-time congealed in them during extraction. I understand the STV/marginal theory, the older theory, which Marx subscribed to, simply disagrees with it. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't "understand" it if you need to characterize it as "magical". The market price of something is the price at whichit is being exchanged or exchangeable. You are making a pointless distinction. You seem to object to the significance of exchange prices on the grounds that they involve only a "binary decision" along the lines accept/reject. But ... so what? Digital computers work on the basis of binary on/off switches. Enough binary choices and one has a calculation -- and a result that carries information. What is "magical" about this? That you don't like it, I accept. But you make negative characterizations about its being "magic" and "mysticism" which turns out to be just new ways of restating the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the information-carrying significance of prices. Exchanged prices, of course. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as the use of resources, due to the nature of our economic system, the only way of knowing whether the use of the resource of labor-time is "optimal" or not is whether the commodity made with the labor-time is exchangable. I don't even think the word optimal is that great - optimal implies different levels of something whereas there is only one arbiter - exchange. An ounce of gold can be exchanged for 450 dollars, or 425 euros, but one is not more optimal than the other, they are all equivalent to one another. Ruy Lopez 01:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is the beauty of it, you don't have to rely on one arbiter, or even know whether it is optimal overall, in a market, individuals just need to perform their local optimizations according to their local goals, local information and the market information given by market prices. Perhaps there is some global optimum that is not achieved through such local optimization techniques, but at least whatever optimum that is achieved reflects the individuals values as expressed by their real willingness to exchange resources for them and not some enforced agreement or theorectical consensus where the individual did little more than express a preference in a poll.--Silverback 01:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about markets? What is the difference between the central committee of the CPSU setting grain production quotas and the management of ADM setting grain production quotas, the grain being made into a bread which goes to the market which is exchanged for dollars or rubles and then consumed? The only difference is in the method of production control - in capitalism, corporate bureaucrats make almost all production decisions, in USSR socialism, CPSU bureaucrats made almost all production decisions.

The USSR had markets too, where do you think workers went to buy bread, shirts and such things? The local market.

Interesting point. Workers didn't simply distribute bread to one another, they went to the market to buy it with rubles. Any justification for that practice is also a justification for the opening of stock and bond exchanges, too. --Christofurio 20:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as market information given by market prices, there is only a binary piece of information, which I wouldn't even call price, but whether a commodity was exchangable with a commodity of equal value.

Again, you seem to see some significance in what you do or don't want to "call" things. If you offer me a euro for this doohicky, and I agree, then we have established an exchange price for the doohicky. That is, as you say, a "binary piece of information." It is also a price. Prices = information. Why do you need to stir up so much confusion about that simple point? There might be a lot of reasons why we agreed on one euro. Some of them involve supply and some involve demand. Both sets of reasons involve other prices, and alternatives each of us had in other markets. The price of the doohicky is part of that broader system. This is not a theory, it is a simply fact.

Anyhow, as I said before, these are two different theories. At a certain point one reaches diminishing returns discussing this, we're both simply restating over and over the differences between the LTV and STV theories. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Diamonds are a switch of subject in the way that you invoked them, because you're simply changing the subject to LTV, which is another way of saying, "communists think differently from their critics." Yes -- in general anyone who believes in X thinks differently from the critics of X. So? In an article about Xism, one ought to include a fair statement of the difference, and not keep interrupting that statement with distractions such as ... "but of course, Xists disagree with these disagreements with X"! --Christofurio 14:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I found the switch to diamonds in the article particularly troubling, because they are not as scarce as believed, and take relatively little labor to produce (about $2 per carat) and have been artificially made scarce by a cartel. I'd like to find a different example of a utilitarian good that takes little labor to produce, but that consumes a scarce resource or material that has competing alternate uses, in order to illustrate how a labor theory of value price would lead to uneconomic decision making by consumers because the scarcity is not reflected in the price nor is the opportunity cost of alternate uses of the scarce material.--Silverback 17:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What "switch"? I have given an example of a scarce resource, (finely) cut large diamonds. What was the previous example this was switched from? What was the scarce resource example you are saying this was switched from because I don't see it. Finely cut diamonds with many carats are not $2 per carat, if you can buy at those prices please tell me because I'll be glaf to pay you double or triple. I am talking about the entire labor process, not just the guy who drives the truck to the jewelery store. I think diamonds are a good example but I'll entertain other ones (gold?) It's not for me to think up your examples for you. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism requires Atheism?

Isn't that true? I thought atheism was a common denominator. All this talk about early christian / amish / shaker communism-like activities makes my head spin. What's the deal? I thought religion was the opiate of the masses and we were to find our solace in praying to Marx or some such ;) Maybe Juche?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why should communism require atheism? Sure, the various Marxist strains have been pretty anti-clerical, but common ownership of the means of production is clearly a much older idea. Grant65 (Talk) 12:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK then, you are suggesting Communism can be divorced of Marx entirely? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism and communist experiments existed before Marx and, in fact, before Marx most experiments with communism were of a religious nature, particularly among Christians. AndyL 12:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well thats a bit of a hat flipper, since I favor communal sharing in a religious setting, and to some extent among other NGO's. But that doesn't make me a commie, does it? :S

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One might take you more seriously if you didnt' use words like "commie". I doubt anyone would take an editor of the Christinaity article very seriously if he or she kept referring to Christians as "Jesus freaks". Anyway, there's quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was a communist while there's absolutely no evidence that he was a capitalist;) See the stub Religious communism as well as Christian socialism and social gospel .AndyL 21:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus probably did participate in markets as a carpenter, and his objection to money changers had more to do with inappropriate location (the temple). Perhaps, he can serve as a good example of tolerance to other communists, since he eschewed a state christianity, not seeking to overthrow the Roman empire (render unto Caesar...) but advocating a more bottom up, personal morality approach. --Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All successful communist societies have had a religious basis. They have been of moderate size, from a few hundred to a few thousand members. Their religious basis has varied from radical interpretations of Christianity such as Oneida Community to quite fundamentalist and conservative such as the Shakers of Ann Lee, many were based on German pietism. These communities were very prosperous and were the envy of their less-favored neighbors [2]. Secular efforts to imitate them such as New Harmony were unsuccessful. Fred Bauder 14:17, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

why just start at a few hundred, the church itself has been described as a family of family and perhaps communism starts even smaller, "whenever three or more are gathered in his name". Variants of the altruism meme have some persuasive power, perhaps because of the altruism "gene". I still think they break down and become virulent with size, large churches become cults, adopt rigid virulence, or split. Perhaps communism requires community and community has its size limits.--Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Anthropologists postulate all societies were communist prior to about 4000 B.C.E. One thing which is self-apparent is that a society with no surplus must be communist. In other words, if I have to spend all day working just to feed myself, with nothing left over in surplus (or "profit"), I obviously live in a communist society. There is nothing left over to supply a slave-master, feudal lord or capitalist. Ruy Lopez 00:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, the first signs of surplus predate 4000 B.C.E., there is evidence of art, ornament, ritual, hierarchy and status, tools refined beyond mere satisficing in the archeological evidence of pre-history. Some of these signs of surplus have been proposed as defining of modern humans and are assumed exist, even before the better preserved technologies developed.--Silverback 00:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say 4000 BCE, I said about 4000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, societies shifted to agriculture from being more-or-less hunter-gatherers. This created a steady surplus, which allowed for the possibility of the existence of a class that did not need to do work. Ruy Lopez 12:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course communism doesn't require atheism. Intrigue 00:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruy didn't like my earlier changes to the "Other forms of communism" section, likely because it was POV. I have now corrected my wording and feel it is now NPOV. Wikipedia says that we should be writing NPOV material, that is, we should try to show different sides of an issue, not cover up opposing views. So Ruy, although you are a communist, you have to play by Wikipedia rules. You cannot cover up a belief held by many Christians that opposes the "Jesus was a communist" theory. Besides, you are not religious, how could you even try to say that this belief is unsound, illogical, or untrue? You may disagree with this position but you cannot (according to Wikipedia rules) revert my edits whenever you get a chance. Correct them if they seem too POV for you, but don't cover them up by reverting them every time. How about some dialogue before you revert them next time, huh? Think NPOV Ruy.Gaytan 22:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All Communist states (perhaps there are a few exceptions) have been atheist, yes. Recall Marx describing religion as a pointless distraction from "revolution." J. Parker Stone 01:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Communism is secular, not athiest, isn't it? That means it doesn't require religion, but its not actually opposed to it. -- Natalinasmpf 22:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Early communism may not have required atheism but modern theories, and certainly Marxism, do. While everyone knows Marx's "Reiligion is the opiate of the masses" quote (I'd love to hear what he'd think of TV today), the real opposition to religion comes from its class nature. All communists strive to create a classless society and the clergy have traditionally maintained their own customs, dress codes, ideals and organisations. They are arguably the most distinct of all classes GreatGodOm 29 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Ruy states: "As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that?"

The barometer is exchanges at prices that reflect supply and demand. If a person chooses to exchange x which he has for y in the market place, it is assumed in economics that he considers himself better off. The assumption may not be valid if the person is stupid or lacks information about the goods being exchanged and needs big brother to make the decisons for him to achieve happiness. But the core of economics gives the individual a little credit for having better information about his own preferences and what would satify him than others making the decison for him would. This is the reason both sides in an exchange usually say "thank you", otherwise they would be making the exchange, since if the goods were of equal value to each they would not make the exhange since the transaction cost would make them better off with their status quo. Furthermore, if a person has a medium of exchange like money and the market has many goods which he could exchange it for, his purchase of x instead of y or z, displays his preference and satisfies him more than making the other choices or no exchange at all. Perhaps you don't accept this economic assumption, it depends on whether you give individuals a little credit for being able to autonomously make their own decisions.

In a communist mass society, where prices are set by the labor theory of value, people will respond the same way to price signals, if those signals don't also reflect the rarity of materials or the demand of them for higher uses for example, the fact that silver's value should reflect its usefulness in electronics and photography, what is to prevent it from all being used up for silverware. When prices do reflect demand, silver will go to where it will produce the most economic value, because uses that produce more value will be able to bid more for it. Note that a market system, also values less utilitarian things, such as silverware, but those who value it, had to value it more than others, since they had to value it enough to bid it away from other uses. Perhaps a person is stupid for valuing a silver spoon more than a radio, or film, but that is the subjective nature of value. Markets and prices tend to allocate things to achieve greater overall satisfaction and efficiency, at least where, information costs, transaction costs and externalities are low.--Silverback 00:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

??? I don't know where to start with this! As a piece of 'market-advocacy' it is an interesting perspective, but it is not an NPOV treatment of the subject. Intrigue 15:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you might start by reading some micro-economics and price theory. Perhaps market economics is a POV subject, but even so, its theory of price, efficiency, and even problems have been fleshed out and practiced, much more than whatever the communist equivilent would be in a mass society that had a minimal or limited state. Until that is worked, perhaps communes had best interact with the world as basic survival units (BSUs) within existing free market societies. The can price their goods as they wish, and participate in markets exchanging with other BSUs such as individuals, families, state sanctioned limited liability corporations (they can't exist without state sanction, so should be thought of as part of the state), etc. Of course, when participating in the markets, they might find the prices quite different, but arbitragers will step in to reduce any inbalances.--Silverback 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view, but it's far from fact. Intrigue 03:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting response, I mentioned a theory from an established field and then I mention a proposal for how communes might co-exist and operate within a market economy and you respond with "it's far from fact". Frankly, you aren't passing the Turing Test.--Silverback 04:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because I am a PHP script. It's fine to quote this as a theory, and reference who thinks it, it is just that presenting it as uncontested fact is not ok. Beep beep. Intrigue 20:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a robustly confirmed theory, I suppose you think the theories of evolution and relativity should have to be presented the same way. It would be a herculean task to present all the supporters of these theories, and the list of contesters, would either be some crackpots, or some bleeding edge tweakers who really accept the theory as 90 % right.--Silverback 00:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, we do reference who proposes these theories, and they are a lot easier to agree on than theories about 'levels of individual satisfaction'. I certainly don't think that this theory has 90% acceptance among any reasonable group of people. I'm disturbed by your reluctance to reference it if it really is that mainstream, I'm certainly not asking for every proponent, just one or two notable ones. Intrigue 02:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are not many universities without microeconomics and price theory courses.--Silverback 02:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have no problems attributing this theory to some published authors. Intrigue 19:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I wouldn't. I would just pick a broadly distributed comprehensive text, such as Exchange and Production: Theory in Use by Alchian & Allen., that way I wouldn't have to make a Darwin or Dawkin's type of choice. --Silverback 12:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement - the theory will be referenced in the article as one advanced by these people (among others)? Intrigue 18:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, there is a lot of unreferenced material in the article. The culture on the this page seems to be to achieve balance in unreferenced material. In this type of culture, if certain info, is seriously challenged, as patently false or illogical or nonsensisical then there might be a specific request or challenge to document it. We give each other space here, people present their arguments and the reader has the burden of weighing whether they make sense or not. For instance, in the human nature section, there is a poor example of "altruistic" human behavior, the mother caring for the child, which is universal mammalian behavior and which evolutionary theory never had any problem explaining. Certain risky behaviors in situations where the genetic relationship was more distant or less certain is where the research was grappling with. And the idea the capitalism suppresses altruism and communism might release these bonds is speculation bordering on nonsense. However, I credit the reader with being able to detect what might have rigor behind it and what does not. Now if you want to go through the article with a fine tooth comb, and find things you can challenge with credible and on-point references you will be a formidible contributer and closer to passing the turing test. However, such rigor might disturb the communitarian peacefulness of the communism page. 8-) --Silverback 19:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unreferenced or not, I think everyone understands the idea of an open market. However, the unproven part is whether market price-setting actually does result in higher levels of individual satisfaction. Why would it not? Simply because market forces rely on relatively short-term vision and are not coherent. Large-scale long-term projects beneficial to all are rarely initiated by market entities. Nor does the general direction of the market necessarily provide greater individual satisfaction. One might consider that if the resources invested in the perfume market (for instance) were instead allocated to general healthcare and/or dietary balance, satisfaction may very well be increased even for those individuals who would ordinarily have purchased perfume.--Csmcsm 01:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It results in higher satisfaction than the consumer started off with, since the exchanges are voluntary. This is not being compared to what some omniscient planner would do assuming he knew what was really best, it is being compared to the same consumer exchanges where instead the prices are set on the labor theory of value, prices that don't reflect the scarcity of resources or the demand for higher uses. Under the labor theory of value, the price would be the same for steel spoons as for silver spoons if their manufacturing and supply processes required the same amount of labor. Scarce resource like silver or energy, and alternate demand from higher uses such as silver in electronics or photographic plates (perhaps for X-rays) is not reflected in the price and thus not in the consumer decision. The assumption is that the consumer would make better decisions with better information, admittedly this gives the consumer credit for a little intelligence and personal knowledge of his/her own values. You view perfume as a short term decision that ignores the long term posibilities, but it may the proper longer term choice in the consumer's value system, if for instance it enables the procurement of a more fertile mate with higher quality genes (someone really, really good looking?). You talk as if noone should ever accept risks for short term pleasure, as if, in a communist society, there would be no mountain climbing, sky diving, promiscuous sexuality, jaywalking, etc. because these don't achieve some ominiscient level of satisfaction or contribute to better health care.--Silverback 05:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not answering my points (as usual). Under a market system, resources are dictated mostly by selfish individuals with short-term goals. I've accepted that a communist nation is likely to set the wrong prices with regard to individual demand. But you're not considering the downside of the free-market system: which is that commodities that are inefficient at raising individual satisfaction in general can force the price of efficient commodities to increase. To follow your example, individual demand for decorative silverware will force the cost of X-Ray plates up in a free market, despite the fact that decorative silverware is grossly inefficient in comparison at raising individual satisfaction. Why is it that capitalist nations rely on communist structures to deliver basic public goods? --Csmcsm 20:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said, this is a theory, and should not be presented as fact, but as a theory advanced by some (perhaps many) people. I'm baffled as to why you would not want to reference this as the opinion of some notable politcal theorists. We don't need to argue about whether it is right or wrong, just say who claims it. Intrigue 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics, economics, and psychology

While what is referred to here on the wiki as communism isn't what I think of when I hear the word (I think of State Communism, i.e. pol pot & stalin), it does seem to be an important concept. This "communalism" is actually very agreeable to me as a spiritual person, I believe strongly in altruism. Unfortunately, these altruistic sociological theories only seem to work as far as the commune, and even then only when there is a solid religious foundation, and often a charismatic leader as well. Frankly, I think the people who desire to attempt Anarcho-Communism on a grand scale, or without a focus on God, have little comprehension of economics, psychology, sociology, or... history. They forget that the shiny idealism they believe so strongly in was once shared by those radicals who led to Stalin, Pol Pot, and every form of state communism. They forget that not everyone is altruistic, and indeed, that many are violent conquerors, or simply minor parasites, looking to revel in excess at the disadvantage of others. Every time I hear someone like Noam Chomsky speak, my mind wanders to visions of Black shirts beating political opponents and forcing them to drink castor oil, Snowball being chased from the farm by dogs, and Trotsky getting stabbed with an ice pick. No matter how pretty the utopia you envision, reality will always eventually step in. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? Read some more and you can dispel your own myths and misconceptions, if you wanna stop scaring yourself over something that isn't real.--Che y Marijuana 22:02, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Communist/Socialist, is that sure?

Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether European socialdemocracy, wich can be considered socialism even if of a moderate kind, does not involves public ownership of the means of production. And I don't think that there has been even one communist regime that has completely abolited private ownership, nor Karl Marx ever proposed to do that. Before the october revolution I think that the world communist was just a synonim of revolutionary socialist. After that it was used to refer to those socialists that had embrassed Lenin's ideas and that looked at the October Revolution as their political source of inspiration. juliet.p from Italy

Blaming the Resistance for a Revolution's Violence

This is almost a cartoonishly bad argument. Summarizing and paraphrasing just a bit, we're now saying, "some of communism's critics complainthat revolutions are bloody. To this communists reply: if the establishment didn't resist the revolution, it could all be done quickly and peacefully."

Yes, and if Haile Selassie had gone along, Mussolini's takeover of his country would have been bloodless, too. Does anybody defend the general principle that resistance as such is evil because it forces aggressors to get violent?

I agree that this passage should be deleted or rewritten at least. TDC 16:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Deng quote

I don't understand how the Deng quote needs contextualising, or how it is POV. We are reporting the judgement of many that China has made significantly pro-capitalist economic reforms; the quote is a support of this view. Don't interpret this as a challenge; I'm just genuinely confused, and don't understand the need for reversion. In the interests of accuracy, isn't the best approach to attempt to provide necessary contextualisation? Lacrimosus 07:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the quotation was, "Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious." Yet, the way it was inserted into the article seems to imply that Deng was dismissing communism and admitting the superiority of capitalism. Also, is his conception of what it means to be "rich" any different in China from the prevailing one in the West? One quotation, at any rate one that can be interpreted in multiple ways, does not illustrate a complicated phenomena that accompany China's development... This quotation adds nothing to the article other than confusion. (There are already links concerning Chinese economic reform that are sufficient.) Please remove it. 172 08:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he said it, at the time he was allowing market reforms, would indicate that he thought central planning, if not communism itself, was inhibiting wealth creation. The quote does not seem confuse any issues. If it seems a mixed message, perhaps that accurately reflects the state of affairs in the real world as well.--Silverback 02:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True, it is a complicated phenomenon, and it would be great if someone could sufficiently articulate its causes. I disagree with the reading that it involves Deng conceding to capitalism's superiority; I interpret it it as a change of views - it wouldn't be any more true to say that Mussolini by changing his opinions conceded to the superiority of fascism. Nevertheless, I will take out the quote, it'd still be nice if knowledgeable persons/people could talk more about the development of Maoist economics in China. Lacrimosus 23:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please no revert war, I've even included a Washington Times source for you. It's a perfectly apt and reasonable quote. 172, please leave your agenda behind. Libertas

Hammer & Sickle

The article itself seems to have become much better of late in respect of not identifying communism exclusively with Leninism and the former USSR, though there is some way to go in this respect. The use of the hammer and sickle logo and its description as 'the international symbol of communism' is an example. It wouldn't be regarded as such by left communists, council communists, most Trotskyites, Anarcho-communists and other advocates of a communist society (granted it would often depend on how far you were from 1917 when you asked them). The appearance of the hammer and sickle at the top of the banner advertising the communism series of articles is likewise inappropriate, given that that series contains many articles on schools of thought that were extremely critical of, if not hostile to, the USSR. Shall we consign it to the dustbin of history? Mattley 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explanations for the removal of Ultramarine's text

• Opponents of communism point out that the number of people killed are more than one hundred million. And that the methods used included concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides. [[3][4]
  • This is addresssed already in a way that avoids violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View with the following "...presiding over periods of repressive rule that saw tens of millions of casualties (see also Communist state)." In addition, you links have been added to the text. Further detail is found in the articles on the histories of the various Communist regimes and Communist state.
• And that they [concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides] took place in almost every communistic state.
  • This is a description of the Stalinist USSR, which saw a scale of violence and terror unseen in Communist regimes that came to power after the Second World War, such as Cuba.
• And in the Soviet Union continued even when that state was a superpower."[5]
  • The terror was abated significantly following Stalin's death, with Khrushchev's de-Stalinization. To make it clear that the USSR and other Communist governments were still nevertheless repressive single party regimes, but in a way that does not over-simplify history and violate NPOV, I added: "In the second half of the twentieth century, movements that threatened Communist Parties' monopoly on power, such Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring and China's Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, continued to be suppressed. Given these incidents and their often-violent histories, Communist Party-led regimes are often associated with human rights abuses, especially in the West."
• They also point out that every communistic state to date have been a dictatorship.
  • The text states, "Because they were governed by monopolistic parties..." Those who argue that every Communist regime has been a dictatorship base that on the fact that a single party has a monopoly on power, so this point is already addressed while following NPOV.
• Some supporters of communism claim that these states were in fact not communistic. Opponents claim that using the same argument, it is not possible to criticize capitalistic societies, as it can be claimed that apparently capitalistic states are in fact not capitalistic.
  • This is neither here nor there. They were Communist Party run states, and to dispute this would be more of a stretch than arguing that the world is flat. They were not "communistic" though (with a small "c"). Communism is a social system based on common ownership of all property, an ideal that Communist Party run regimes claim that they are attempting to realize, but one that never has been realized; and this cannot be disputed given every single definition of "communism" (small "c") available.

In all, note many of the recent additions under the "violence" section (formerly "revolutionary violence"-- broadened to include the entire span of their rule) that incorporate the topics that Ultramarine is attempting to bring to light. 172 00:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely people acknowledge that historically Communist states have held communist characteristics, even if they have not fulfilled Marx's dream of "true" communism (which, given the circumstances necessary, is utterly impossible) J. Parker Stone 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stick with standard definitions. Communism is based on common ownership of all property. Socialism is based on state ownership of the means of production. 172 03:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao. And that the deaths occured in almost all Communist states. However, the text is a marked ímprovement. Earler there were NO mention of the millions of killed, neither in this article or in that about Communist states. I will restore the last argument. The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property.Ultramarine 08:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property. This is covered elsewhere in the article. Keep in mind that there are also articles on Communist state, Marxism, and socialism. The Communism article is the on the ideology of Communism (large "C") and communism (small "c") as a social system; and it already veers way too off topic with discussions of socialism and the political history of various Communist regimes. Re: millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao Not in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev. Not in China under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao. Perhaps you are referring to Pol Pot's rule. 172 09:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read more history. Soviet Union [6] China[7] You seem to think that facts that contradict your view of the world are POV. But they are just facts, not opinions. Calling deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation for casualties is POV. I will change the statements so that the fact are clear. Do not censor them, even if you do not like the facts. Ultramarine 14:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not attribute this to POV. The reverts are more the result of problems posed by your non-native English, which is leaving this section a jumbled mess. The article goes into a sufficient level of detail mentioning tens of millions of casualties. The political histories of the relevant Communist regimes can be found in articles on the History of the Soviet Union and the History of the People's Republic of China. And, yes, it is POV to deny that the terror was abated significantly in the Soviet Union and China after the deaths of Stalin and Mao, respectively. 172 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then change the English. Do not censor the facts. You again insist that deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation are casualties? You have already demonstrated your lack of historic knowledge by claiming that millions did not continue to be killed after Stalin and Mao. Keep the facts so you and others can learn. Ultramarine 04:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a historian, so you can show me all the libertarian polemics and websites that you possibly can will not have shown me anything new to me. Writing NPOV is not just a matter of inserting "opponents say," "supporters say" anywhere you can possibly fit it but rather writing specifically and precisely. Internal exile and concentration camps in Siberia long predate the Soviet Union, as do mass starvations, so they are not unique to Communist rule. Thus, I will integrate your observations of famine and starvation into the article in way that maintains proper historical writing, specifically mentioning the Gulags and the famine coinciding with collectivization. 172 06:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very afraid to let others know that killing continued until the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, under Lenin, after Mao and in all Communist countries. Add that killings also took place in Russia before the revolution, but do not remove that they continued as long as the communists were in power. Why was there NO mention of the Gulags in the articles prior to this discussion, if you had knowledge of them? Ultramarine 07:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the finger-pointing. (Libertas?) I wrote only very small portions of the article; and this is not the article on the history of the soviet Union. 172 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made your point again in a clear, specific way. I added that the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, continued to be single party regimes that executed political opponents of the regime, though on a far smaller scale. 172 07:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Much better now. I disagree to "casualties". Which is " a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action". And if these states were not communist, then one can similarly claim that apparently capitalist states are not capitalist. Ultramarine 07:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I smell a Trot!

This article is filled with Trotskyist slants. Stalin suppressed ALL dissent? Find me a quote from Stalin where he actually says it is neccesary to "suppress all dissent". He may very well have done that, but that isn't part of Stalinism. In fact, there is no Stalinism. Stalinism is term invented by Trots for Marxism-Leninism. Trotskyism is a deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

• Just out of interest - are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party? Average Earthman 17:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"He may very well have done that, but that isn't part of Stalinism" Then, if Stalin did it, what is it part of? BTW, Trotsky said there was no such thing as "Trotskyism" and that the term was invented by Stalinists. Trotsky preferred the term "Bolshevik-Leninism". AndyL 17:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you smell the truth. Bah, what does that matter if it were all or some? The fact that Stalin did it, is still there. And, further up, there is no Stalinism and there is no Trotskyism. It's just invidual interpretions of how Communism should be, made of them...although I prefer the latter. However; The article is neutral and is just telling history how it happened as neutrally as possible. Although I agree and changed it from "all" to "most".--OleMurder 06:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that Trotsky would want the term "Bolshevik-Leninism" when he spent most of his life attacking the Bolsheviks and Lenin, and only joined the Bolsheviks in July of 1917 (three months before the revolution) and still spent most of his time attacking Lenin. The solution, IMO, is to not use the term "Stalinism" when writing articles about those who upheld Stalin, or to reference it in such way as to clarify the meaning. Same should be done for Trotskyites if they feel that the term "Troskyism" is incorrect. BTW, Stalin hardly crushed all dissedents. IMO, he was a little too friendly and a good purging before his death might have prevented revisonism and the eventual collapse of the USSR, and we would have a lot more hope for the future today. --Mista-X 16:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"there is no better Bolshevik" Lenin on Trotsky.

economic critique

Not going to go into too much detail here, since it has been well covered elsewhere, notably by Karl Marx... Here is the addition made by Luis

• According to critics, communists forget, however, that the production process requires more than just labour: machines (i.e. "capital"). These machines have a cost, which has to be included in the price of the produced good. Indeed, a T-shirt can nowadays be either produced with lots of labour (for instance in China) or with many machines (in Europe). Modern economic theory would imply that both T-shirts should have the same price (since they are essentially the same), no matter how much labour went into them.

Communists don't forget that capital makes up part of the cost of production of a commodity, though they do see capital as 'dead' or 'congealed' labour. There is no conflict between Marx and "Modern economic theory" on the point you claim. Yes, these T-shirts exchange at the same price despite having required different amounts of labour for their production because, in Marxian terms, their value is determined by the average amount of labour required for their production. There are plenty of valid criticisms that could be made of Marx, but this one is just based on a misapprehension I'm afraid. See Wages, Price and Profit or Wage Labour and Capital for more if you like. They explain the Labour theory of value very cogently and address the assumptions you are making. Mattley 19:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does the theory explain how the congealed labor in the capital equipment just happens to come out equal to the labor in the labor intensive process? That coincidence sounds too unlikely to be true. There wouldn't be much point to the machines if they didn't save net labor in the long run.--Silverback 10:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you're driving at in that first sentence there. It isn't a question of amounts of labour being equal - because it is not the amount of labour in a particular commodity but the average amount required. In general, that is the point of introducing machinery: it means that a capitalist is temporarily able to produce commodities more cheaply than competitors yet realise a greater profit because he would be producing below the socially necessary cost of production for said commodities. This competitive advantage, in a real-world situation, would be of very short-duration, since competitors would also increase their capital-intensity. Is this not covered at Labour theory of value or somewhere? As for centrally planned states etc, I don't know. They weren't 'socialist', and if they claimed to be putting 'Marxian economics' into practices they were even more fraudulent than I realised. Mattley 12:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got your point. I won't put it back. However, what about the bureaucracy part? That critique seems rather relevant to me - after all it does not only apply to centrally planned states, but to any organization that has become too big. Luis rib 22:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gift economy and anarchism

There's no mention of the concept of a gift economy in this article, which I find quite surprising, because the concepts are almost the same. I mean, they could be used to clear up a lot of things which would normally take a lot of things to say, or if the concept wasn't even mentioned, then oh the horror!

Also, I find the fact that this article seems to distinguish too much between anarchism and communism. Can we consider anarchism part of, a branch of communism, whereas Marxist-Leninism is the other main branch? -- Natalinasmpf 22:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried my best to rework the article, it needs ALOT of work. But at least now it mentions gift economies a few times.--Che y Marijuana 03:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the other concern is its elaboration of the idea of the gift economy's part in the movement in both the critique, and the response against it, and especially in the Stalinism vs Trotskyism area. -- Natalinasmpf 20:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyscraper example

Sorry if I seem annoying, but I find the skyscraper example rather bad. Maybe in the US skyscrapers are built entirely with private capital, but in other countries that does not seem to be the case. In the Gulf states skyscrapers are mostly built by state-owned companies. In Europe also the states have a lot of influence on skyscraper-building because of zoning laws, etc. Could the same point be made with another example? Luis rib 17:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggested links

The links which Ultramarine wants to insert are problematic for a number of reasons. Leaving aside the reliability of the sites in question for the time being, the intro to this article states that it is primarily about the theory of communism. It also states that For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state. This seems more than reasonable as a way of organising discussion of such an enormous topic. And since these links all discuss the abuses of Communist-Party regimes, they don't belong here. If we have all that stuff on the crimes of Communist regimes, then what is to stop someone adding links applauding Stalin's success in raising industrial production in the USSR etc. etc etc. It is off-topic. Why should they be here? Mattley 23:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An article about Nazism should have a short section about the human rights crimes. There can be a longer article also about these but they should not be censored in the main article. Furthermore, the real world failure of all attempts to implement Marx's ideas is extremely important for the theory of Communism in general. See my change of the Critique section Ultramarine 00:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Nazism article discusses only the theory, much like this one, with short links to pages with more detail. That's the way it should be. As for the "scholarly works" you're linking to, some in gif format, they are discredited and worthless. At least the cato institute article criticizing communism I added isn't hosted at geocities.--Che y Marijuana 02:18, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Nazism article has an section about Effects with ha short description. Please show evidence that the links are discredited. Many are written by respected academics and published in academic press. Cite your sources! Ultramarine 02:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MIM responds to Black Book of Communism editor Mark Kramer. The editor himself admits accidentally using a percentage sign instead of per thousand sign, multiplying by 10 the numbers in one section. It's not exactly the most trustworthy source.--Che y Marijuana 03:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

As for the Nazism article, there is a small paragraph on it, but it makes no sense to drag it all into here. If we can't do it justice on this page, as it is a big page, it should be placed almost entirely on the other page.--Che y Marijuana 03:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

An error do not certainly discredit an entire book. And that is just one of many books. I will add a partial reference list. Ultramarine 03:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from 1.6, to 16 percent of the chinese population, that's a huge difference. And my point is the whole book is disputed, there's far more in it that has been discredited, I'll track it down for you. As for the other links, none of them are even worth addressing, anyone who takes one look at them would understand. You list a site hosted on Angelfire! Scholarly my ass. Don't reinsert these, let's discuss a list of useful links here. I tried to find some, all I could come up with was the cato thing, but the black book and these other links are CRAP.--Che y Marijuana 03:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cite your sources. What is wrong with other books? Most of them are published by academic press, many by respected researchers. Again, if you have something against this academic reserach, cite your sources. I will skip the link for now and only add back the academic research. Ultramarine 03:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concenrning The Black Book of Communism, the questions about its validity are addressed on its own page. The book is considered to be relevant by many people (incl., for instance, the French right-wing philosopher J-F Revel, in case you want an example). Also, it is quite well-known among the general public as being a book against communism. I don't see a problem in mentioning in here; any criticism of it should move to its own page. Luis rib 09:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the references. We already have a section which introduces the topic of human rights abuses by Communist states and refers the reader to the article on Communist states. Given that this article itself is supposed to be primarily about communism as a theory and future society, that seems more than fair to me. The introduction of these links and/or websites would

1) create an imbalanced article including too much material which is not wihin its scope.

2) endorse several definite points of view, namely that alleged communist states were indeed communist, that the abuses they committed stemmed directly from communist theory, and that any future attempt to bring about a communism society would inevitably lead to a repeat of such abuses.

We don't want a whole bunch of POV now, do we? Mattley 13:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV

My last edit removed some blantant POV from the section on "Communist states." 'Executions, labor camps with high mortality, and mass starvations' have taken place in capitalist societies, but what would happen if one were to put the following in the article on capitalism:

Numerous human rights violations have been attributed to capitalist regimes. These include: executions, labor camps with high mortality, mass starvations caused deliberately and by mismanagement, and ethnic genocides. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is highly disputed; depending on the cited historical sources and on the answer to the question "what kinds of deaths can be attributed to the socio-economic system of capitalist or to the government supporting the capitalist system?", the death toll is perhaps as high as the hundreds of millions. Other widespread accusations concern the lack of freedom of speech in capitalist countries, religious and ethnic persecutions, destruction of historical and cultural heritages, environmental disasters, lack of democracy, restriction of emigration, personality cults, and inherited dictatorship, particularly under those of the fascist variety.

I hope that no one will attempt to put the above in the article on capitalism. That would be absurd-- just as absurd as allowing the content that I'd removed from the article to stay up... If people are interested in detailing a critique of Communist ideology based on the actions of Communist regimes, they will have to cite the research of authortative sources laying out a relationship between Communist ideology and the actions of political authorities in cases such as Stalinist Russia, Communist China, et. al. JMaxwell 21:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the following passage, I removed the bit in italics

Finally, some claim that wars, hunger and lack of elementary medical care, causing the deaths of millions, are the results of capitalist relations of production, making capitalism the single most violent socio-economic system in history. This view, however, is widely criticised, since most wars, famines or epidemics happened in countries that were not really capitalist.

Don't think anyone could really argue that war has not been a characteristic of world capitalism: think world wars one and two for a start, then add Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. As for famine and epidemics, note that this is not what the earlier section refers to. It talks about hunger and lack of elementary medical care, both widespread and devastating in the developing world despite the ability of the world to produce more than enough to supply food and medical care. Lest we are tempted to argue that such countries are not capitalist remember that this too is not exactly what the earlier section alleges. The claim is more precisely that they are the results of capitalist relations of production, ie, the fact that production is carried on for profit rather than to meet human needs. Mattley 23:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Korea was a capitalist war??? North Korea invaded the South! Algeria? Was a colonial war. Afghanistan? I remember some soviet invasion at some point... WWI and WWII? Please! Do not confuse imperialism (WWI) and Nazism (WWII) with capitalism! Your claim that capitalism is associated with war is a complete fallacy. Which wars were started by Sweden? By the Netherlands? By Canada?

As for the rest of your comment: the wide-spread poverty of the developing world, whose consequence is hunger and lack of medical care (among many other problems), is certainly not due to capitalism in America and Europe. How come Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and now China, managed to overcome poverty, hunger and other problems? Only because they embraced capitalism. What you do not understand is that capitalism can only produce profits because it meets human needs (i.e. because people buy what they think they need). The problem in Africa, for instance, is that international trade is often very reduced because of high import duties (preventing people from buying cereals and food in case there is a drought, for instance). Luis rib 23:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place in other talk pages, and there's no need to repeat it here. People looking for information on communism SHOULD find some reference to what happened in countries that officially claimed to be communist. The facts are not in dispute, in any case (there's just some argument on the precise number of deaths, etc.). Your comparison with capitalism is spurious, since capitalism is not as wide-spread as you claim. Certainly not all non-communist states are capitalist. Indeed, most African countries were not capitalist, and neither was Latin America (with the possible exception of Chile). Luis rib 23:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that capitalism is associated with war is a complete fallacy. I am not making this claim. My point is that all 'executions, labor camps with high mortality, and mass starvations' occurred throughout history in societies where private ownership of the means of production dominated economic output. However, whether or not there was a relationship to capitalism and these occurrences is not for Wikipedia to decide, due to the NPOV policy; instead, this is a matter to be taken up in social science academic journals. In the same vein, Wikipedia cannot assert a relationship between every occurrence under Communist regimes and Communist ideology... If you want to cite authoritative source making this claim, feel free to do so. At the same time, this claim must be balanced with other POVs. JMaxwell 01:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible crimes in Capitalist states is not the issue here here. It is human rights violations in the states rules by Communist states. For extensive academic references, Communist states. Please stop this historical revisionism. Ultramarine 03:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding my point. I brought up capitalism as an example in order to demostrate the shortcomings of the approach taken in the writing of the pargraph I'm calling into question. It is POV (and original research) to attribute every occurrence in a Communist regime to Communism independent of other historical factors, just as it is POV and original research to attribute every occurrence in a society where private ownership of capital generates the bulk of economic output to capitalism... However, you may be able to incorporate these observations about history of Communist regimes if you (1) do a better job presenting contending POVs and contextualizing the history and (2) citing authoritative research not just recording these occurrences under Communism but also stating inferences about the relationship between these occurrences and Communism. JMaxwell 03:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have given my academic references. Give your own if you think they are wrong.

As stated in the rewritten text, if one cannot critcze Communism for real-world consequences, then one cannot critcze capitalist states for real-world consequences. So I could remove all statistcs about wealth inequality in Capitalist states and state that this has nothing to with the ideal Capitalist society and thus should not be in an article about capitalism. Ultramarine 03:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have cited some sources (all anticommunist polemics) claiming that certain things occurred under communist regimes, but the paragraph that I removed does not make it clear what these alleged occurrences had to do with Communism. Again, by your reasoning, someone should be able to add the following to the article on capitalism:

Numerous human rights violations have been attributed to capitalist regimes. These include: executions, labor camps with high mortality, mass starvations caused deliberately and by mismanagement, and ethnic genocides. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is highly disputed; depending on the cited historical sources and on the answer to the question "what kinds of deaths can be attributed to the socio-economic system of capitalist or to the government supporting the capitalist system?", the death toll is perhaps as high as the hundreds of millions. Other widespread accusations concern the lack of freedom of speech in capitalist countries, religious and ethnic persecutions, destruction of historical and cultural heritages, environmental disasters, lack of democracy, restriction of emigration, personality cults, and inherited dictatorship, particularly under those of the fascist variety.

JMaxwell 03:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not cite some sources. I cite extensive adademic research. If you want to criticze capitalism, find the academic references and add that to the capitalism article. Do not censor this article. Ultramarine 04:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(1) Mentioning Rummel and the Black Book of Communism? You'd get flunked out of any intro-level college course by calling that "extensive adademic research." If that's considered high standards of "extensive adademic research," we might as well let someone start loading the article on capitalism with crap from Noam Chomsky and calling that the final word on the subject. (I'm not saying that the views of those authors do not belong in this article, just that they cannot be the final word on the subject given the NPOV policy.) (2) In case you ignored my comments earlier, my point is not to criticize capitalism but rather use the comparision as a teaching devise of sorts to illustrate the inherent problems in the approach taken in the pargraph that I am removing by applying it to another topic. (3) Please stop making personal attacks. Accusing someone of trying to 'censor' the article or engaging in 'historical revisionism' go against the norms of civility in online community projects. Please see Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. JMaxwell 04:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I state many other sources besside Rummel and the Black book. If you want to criticze them, give academic references and not hearsay. If you cannot provide the academic references, you are censoring. Ultramarine 04:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a diversion. One does not have to make this into a debate forum in order to recognize that authors like Rummel are not the final word on the subject... You directed me earlier to the article on the Black Book of Communism, but that article contains references to research incorporating other factors for explaining the same observed phenomena; the paragraph that I'd removed from this article lacks this balance, and thus ought to be removed on grounds of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. JMaxwell 04:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Communist states:

References on human rights violations by Communist states

• Becker, Jasper (1998) Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine'.' Owl Books. ISBN: 0805056688.
• Conquest, Robert (1991) The Great Terror: A Reassessment Oxford University Press ISBN: 0195071328.
• Conquest, Robert (1987) The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195051807.
• Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0674076087.
• Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992 Indiana University Press. ISBN: 0253207568.
• Jackson, Karl D. (1992) Cambodia, 1975-1978 Princeton University Press ISBN: 069102541X.
• Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982 University of California Press. ISBN: 0520208935.
• Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series) Yale University Pres. ISBN: 0300092849.
• Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) The Great North Korean Famine. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN: 1929223331.
• Nghia M. Vo (2004) The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam McFarland & Company ISBN: 0786417145.
• Pipes, Richard (1995) Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. Vintage. ISBN: 0679761845.
• Rummel, R.J. (1997). Death by Government. Transaction Publishers. ISBN: 1560009276.
• Rummel, R.J. (1996). Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers ISBN: 1560008873.
• Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. Lit Verlag ISBN: 3825840107.
• Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN: 0271019611
• Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN: 0300103220. Ultramarine 04:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. We're all familiar with Rummel, Conquest, Pipes, and the bulk of these authors. Copying and pasting this list, however, is not a license to write a biased diatribe blaming everything occurring under Communist regimes on Communism independent of other factors, such as the social problems inherited from the old regimes... Incidentally, if a Marxist decided to apply your reasoning to the capitalism article, he could just as easily generate a list of Marxist academics who relate capitalism to the great power rivalries leading up to the First World War, the Second World War, and the rise of fascism, and then in turn proceed to blame all the horrors and atrocities of the interwar era on capitalism. JMaxwell 04:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please write this ñew section in the capitalism article and support it with academic references. It would start an interesting debate. But do not censor the academic research regarding Communist states. You have not given a single academic reference that finds an error in current text. Ultramarine 04:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point that I am making does not require the presentation of extensive research. It should be readily apparent to just about anyone who passed high school history. (World History is a requirement in just about every American high school.) All of those watching this article should be expected to have enough of a grounding in the past to be aware of the fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred in noncommunist regimes, and were indeed all too common in both China and Russia before their respective Communist takeovers. That's the only premise of my argument that I am responsible for establishing. With that in mind, your work should be more contextualized and balanced by other possible explanatory variables, like the fact that both China and Russia were engulfed by utter chaos and anarchy before the Communists even came to power. (One would have to be pretty obtuse to expect any group forcibly establishing a new regime to restore order without a considerable amount of bloodshed.) JMaxwell 05:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add your observations, with academic references. The facts are clear and should not be censored. They showed that horrendous human rights violations took place in most or all of the states ruled by Communist parties. If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. For now, you have only made many claims without a single reference as support. Please read cite your sources and no original research. Ultramarine 09:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then you can read about the fallacy of the hasty generalization. I thought that you would be intelligent enough to realize that the paragraph was nothing more than a huge sweeping generalization without having to name-drop, but since you would rather continue playing games instead of respecting the NPOV policy, I can join you in this pissing contest and start listing off academics myself. For starters, Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy relates the class structure of the old regimes the political development of Communist regimes. Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions relates class and state structures of the old regime to political development. I cite these two because their works are the basis of established literature on this subject in comparative politics; if you are interested in other writers in this field, you can go ahead and do a search on Jstor yourself. JMaxwell 09:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. I am not setting out to do either of these things. This is a staw man and yet another diversion on your part. The problem is that you are refusing to accept any other possible explanation of these occurrences except Communism, which makes little sense when you consider the basic fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred at times in noncommunist regimes, and, moreover, took place at times in both Russia and China before the Communists came along. This is an example of how tricky it is to argue that these poltical patterns are caused by an economic system or an ideology, and why these explantions are for the realm of scholarly journals, not Wikipedia. JMaxwell 09:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You understate the magnitude of the situation, the countries themselves were slave labor camps since they shot people trying to escape, there is film footage of it happening for badness sakes! Denial of the right emigrate is perhaps the most basic human rights violation (for those allowed to live), we could perhaps tolerate some diversity in country oppressiveness if people were living there were doing so voluntarily, but denial of the right to emigrate trumps any apologia these regimes might offer for the measures they use.--Silverback 10:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) Are you denying that these crimes took place? Then give academic references 2) Are you saying that similar crimes took place in Capitalist countries? Then give references and write something in the Capitalism article. 3) Are you saying that all the crimes took place during the revolution and that there were no Gulags, terror or mass starvations long after this? Then please give references. You seem to think that crimes can be excused if there has been similar crimes before which is an absurd idea. It is like justifying Hitler's genocides by stating that the German empire earlier committed genocides in Africa. Ultramarine 11:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you speak English? How many times do you have to make the same accusations and say the same things over and over again? Reread what I wrote. If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. I am not setting out to do either of these things. This is a staw man and yet another diversion on your part. The problem is that you are refusing to accept any other possible explanation of these occurrences except Communism, which makes little sense when you consider the basic fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred at times in noncommunist regimes, and, moreover, took place at times in both Russia and China before the Communists came along.... You want to claim that these things were caused only by Communism, independent of other factors, when in reality hisotry was more complex. JMaxwell 20:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring my questions and statements in more recent replies. I will go all the way to arbitration if there is any attempt at censorship of very well-documented historical facts. Ultramarine 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You keep on turn my statements into strawmen, attributing motives to me that I'm not working for. You asked for sources, and I gave them to you. There is indeed writing on China and Russia that does not attribute all the problems in those two countries to Communist boogymen... Go ahead and take this to arbitration. Your work is POV and you are acting unreasonable. I'm sure that will be evident to any less fanatical person. JMaxwell 21:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of your sources explain why the human rights violations by Communist states should be censored from the article. Add to the text that there is "writing on China and Russia that does not attribute all the problems in those two countries to Communist boogymen". This is no excuse for excluding the very well-documented historical research. Should the article about Nazism censor the human rights crimes because there are some books which have a different opinion? Ultramarine 21:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Damn you're being really dense. My point isn't to keep information out, just to balance it with more information, or get rid of it if the writers can manage to present it within the framework of NPOV. The problem is not necessarily what you are observing, but the lack of attention to other areas of academic literature when it comes to causation. JMaxwell 21:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then add the information, as I have repeatedly stated, with references. Ultramarine 21:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear JMaxwell. Since you ask in how far theoretical Communism is responsible for the crimes attributed to Communism, here's an explanation (documented in The Black Book, among many other sources). A) Certainly labour camps, famines, etc. existed before communism. B)In the case of labour camps, these persisted for the simple reason that the general population was opposed to the government and the policies it implemented (e.g. collectivization of land). C) Famines were directly linked to Communist policies. In China's case, the Black Book explains very well how the economic measures of the Great Leap Forward were the prîncipal reason of the famine (e.g. the prohibition to trade grain between provinces, the collectivization of land, the central planification, the reduced labour force following the forced move to industrial production, etc.). This is different from previous famines that took place before communism, and were due to indifference from the central powers. D) In the case of Cambodia, the genocide was directly the consequence of Pol Pot's interpretation of Communism (i.e. an agricultural communism, without money, industry, or services, and where individualism was suppressed to the point of prohibiting glasses), which he tried to preserve by assassinating or starving those that might have seen the flaws in his reasoning. E) You may argue that all these points are irrelevant since they don't reflect real (utopic) communism). This point can be countered by noticing that 1- utopic free market capitalism doesn't exist either; 2- until 1989, all communist parties, and most intellectuals that supported marxism, agreed that the Soviet Union and other countries were on the way of establishing communism; 3- from an economic point of view, many measures typically identified with communism were indeed implemented by Communist countries, with the consequences we know. Luis rib 21:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Save your breath. I have heard all of these explanations many times before. I am not saying that I necessarily disagree with them, but that the article should not be based on the above POV premises or other POV premises that recognize that every social and economic structure that has ever developed in China or Russia has had its inherent problems. JMaxwell 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have kept this on my watchlist, although I had taken a vacation from it for various reasons. The article seems somewhat improved; there is at least brief mention of the horrendous consequences of the Communist adventure. This introduction:

":This article is about communism as a form of society built around a gift economy, as an ideology advocating that form of society, and as a popular movement. For issues regarding the organization of the communist movement, see the Communist party article. For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state.

represents, however, an attempt to distance the article from the realities of practical communism as we have known it in our lifetime and especially from the realities of being involved in the movement.

One note: This article is not about capitalism and the problems capitalism has. That material needs to go in the article, capitalism. Yet, the communist movement cannot be considered apart from capitalism as much of its energy comes from the consequences of capitalist organization of the economy. Fred Bauder 14:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

No, but neither is the capitalist article going to be mainly about the problems it has. The communism article is good for criticising capitalism from the perspective of a communist economic system. And cannot considered apart? You're basically saying that the immune system really shouldn't be considered apart from viruses, bacteria and cancer cells because much of the "energy" and evolutionary drive to develop an immune system comes from the consequences of pathogen organisation in the body? -- Natalinasmpf 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Utopian Communism

Whether we have an article utopian communism or not, that is where this sort of stuff belongs: "...communism itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be related to the actions of 20th century states." Essentially this is propaganda and is, in fact, a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This line served its purpose for bait and switch, but there was no sign any actual Communist movement took it seriously. Our article can include such theories but the bulk of it needs to refer to ideologies which existed or events which occured. Fred Bauder 16:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dialogue

Sorry, this is not propaganda. This is the proposed ideology which drove other models forward, but the actual implementation became different. This is why there is a huge conflict between anarcho-communists and Marxists. Communism's original goal is utopia - "utopian communism" is redundant. Stalinism, in etmylogical terms, is not communism, but a derivant of it. This leads to many arguments. The collection of statements may be POV, but the entire NPOV policy is to represent all sides and arguments to give the reader an informed view. I reject the idea that it is a violation. -- Natalinasmpf 18:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same argument can be made about capitalism then. Luis rib 20:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you see the Marxist line is that communism isn't utopian at all, because it is a real and existing tendency within capitalism. It isn't simply 'an idea' or an idealised future society precisely because it is grounded in and will emerge from the conditions of the present society, viz the struggle between the working class and capital. I didn't explain that very well I'm afraid, but Marx goes into some detail on the point in the Manifesto of the Communist Party where he contrasts communism with the Utopian Socialism of various French thinkers, and Robert Owen as well I think. I point this out for the sake of information mainly. Mattley 22:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same argument cannot be made about capitalism, as some starving, and some living in opulance, with no guilty consciences, is the ideal. "Greed is good" remember?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Of course the same argument can be made about capitalism. The reason why capitalism has certain "drawbacks" is because of externalities, interference of the state, lack of competition, lack of information by consumers, ..... One could go on. Perfect capitalism does not exist. But, like Marx, theoreticians have argued that if it existed, those problems would all be overcome. Of course, it is utopian. But it is the same kind of argumentation

With respect to the "greed is good" argument, communism also makes assumptions that are, at best, questionable. Why, for instance, should people that work harder, or that spend a few years at university, be happy with equivalent salaries to people who don't and who stop after primary school? Why, actually, would anyone even try to work harder in those circumstances? Luis rib 22:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, wages are irrelevant, there is no currency and there are no wages, it's a gift economy. Take for example file-sharing networks, vast gift economies in implementation, there's very few on them who give a damn how many songs the person downloading from them has shared. Anyways, as to "greed is good", I'm not criticizing it, I'm saying that Capitalist ideology in and of itself encourages profit as the goal to the exclusion of all others. It encourages a system where some fall to the bottom, and some rise to the top, that's not an externality, that is the basis of capitalism. In fact, it only gets worse as we push in the direction of less government intervention, as hospitals and schools become privatized and the poor are left to rot without any services.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning gift economy: how is it supposed to work on a national scale? If I want a pineapple, how will I get it in a gift economy? Do I have to go to eBay to see who is willing to give away a pineapple? Also, how does a gift economy encourage people to work and to give their best? They are not sure anyone will give them anything afterwards... Concerning capitalism and greed: the idea is that in "perfect capitalism" those that fall to the bottom work less than those that rise to the top. But "perfect capitalism" would assume that everyone has the same opportunities from the start - which is clearly not the case. Indeed, poverty itself is a reason why many people have too few alternatives. That's why any moderate capitalist will argue that the state should help the poor by providing help for better education and access to free (or at least cheap) medical services. In utopian perfect capitalism, those aids would not be necessary since no-one would be disadvantaged from the start (I know, it's a circular argument - that's why it is an utopy). Since utopias don't exist, some level of state intervention is necessary - the question is then to find the right level. BTW, getting back to Ayn Rand, that's why I said she's an extremist - she's arguing for something that cannot exist in this world. Luis rib 23:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, gift economies have been put into practice for periods of time, spain during the civil war/revolution for example, and have worked. Basically, it cannot work in a state system, it requires local, direct democratic, federated collectives. Think of the collective as a small polis, where people know each other, or at least well enough that they would notice if someone was being a total parasite. I'm the bartender, you're the guy who works at the automobile plant syndicate, and ultramarine is the baker. Or at least he's supposed to be. You come to me and ask for a beer, I know you work at the plant and the syndicate gives away its cars for free, so I give it to you. Ultramarine comes to me and asks for beer. But I know he hasn't been giving food for months, and lied to get himself an extra car. So I don't give him jack, cause everyone's been lenient and now it's time to put the foot down. I decide I'll bring it up at the next general assembly in the collective, and everyone confronts him about it. Of course, this can be aided by the use of technology, perhaps smart cards to track statistics of production and consumption, and the ratios, both at an international level and a personal level. Perhaps an automated process that would notify your neighbours if those stats reached a certain ratio? A kind of red flag telling them you've been swindling, and letting them confront you or redicule you for it? Who knows. Guessing how it would work is pointless, but it's not complicated really. -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 23:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have a much better idea. I and some other progressive individuals decide to become pirates. The anarchistic society has no defence since an army and police would be the minarchist definition of a state. After getting rich on plundering I decide to invade some of the anarchist societies and to end my days as tyrant. Ultramarine 23:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except anarchists have no problem with these collectives training themselves and organizing themselves into decentralized, officerless militias, and don't give a damn what minarchists have to say about it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 00:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The rogue statists applaud this decision. Their professional, high-technology expensive army will easily crush the "decentralized, officerless militias" and plunder the anarchist societies. Or even simpler, they might decide to use biological or chemical weapons to cleanse the areas. Ultramarine 00:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a competition, I'm explaining to you the theoretical answers to your poorly understood challenges. The reality is, statelessness does not happen in a vacuum, though it may start in one place. Same with communism. IT would need to, and would, spread beyond any imaginary boundries statists have drawn in the sand. Revolutions have a tendency of going global when they go all the way. Much like feudalism is now nowhere to be seen, so too would capitalism and statism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 00:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

In essence you are saying the anarchism must implemented all over the world with no states left. Even if this somehow would become possible this still would not stop wars by aggressiv states. Because some of the anarchist communities might decide that it easier to take than to produce. So they organize and arm themselves for raiding on other communities. Since they concentrate all their resources on this they will be much stronger than the peaceful communities. Ultramarine 01:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why though? They are given what they need by other communities for free, what is the incentive?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

But they decide they want all of what the other communities have. Or the women. See what happen with anarchistic groups of hunter-gatherers. Many of these communities makes constant war with each other. Ultramarine 10:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But you don't see, war is destruction. Destruction of goods that would otherwise been given to them for free, or in a gift economy to be amplified into even more goods. Why make war when you have peace and economic equality? And a decentralised army is superior: it is fluid and intangible to the enemy; nearly infallible. -- Natalinasmpf 21:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to dialogue

Yes, our article capitalism suffers from the same attempts by utopian advocates. Some claim no capitalist society has ever existed. Someone says it is not propaganda. That implies that a serious theorist might believe this utopian vision could in fact exist. I never met them in real life. What I enountered is people who insisted something good might eventually come out of all the effort, but made excuses for the imperfect contemporary examples. Let's pretend, in short. Fred Bauder 01:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, a lot of pure capitalist (aka laissez faire) economies have always existed. You can't compare "utopian capitalism" to "utopian communism" - communism was designed for utopia, capitalism was just meant to further the goals of one individual over the other. There is no proposed model for "capitalist utopia", because there was no such thing as a "capitalist manifesto", for instance. You have investment for dummies books, economics books or teachings on how to make money and discussion, but it was never to achieve utopia. Because the system's success is not based on how well the community does: just one individual. Hence, this does not apply. Communism - is an socioeconomic model. Capitalism is a purely economic system. True capitalist societies have always existed, true communist entities that took over countries have never existed. -- Natalinasmpf 02:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Natalinasmpf, but your argument is strange. If communism is an utopia, it means it will never be possible to establish it. Thus, it is impossible to judge its merits, and therefore to say if it's good or not. In a sense, Communism would be like the Garden of Eden - another quasi-religious myth. The problem with utopias is that you cannot criticise them and not falsify them. That exactly why utopias are not scientifically valid. Sure, you can argue that communism could be so much better, but you have no means to either prove it or disprove it. I could also argue that Communism is very bad, but again would have no means to prove it. Therefore, if we confine communism to its uropian version, we should rewrite the whole article and compare it to other such utopias - like the Garden of Eden. BTW your view of capitalism is clearly totally biased, but you are right in one point: capitalism is not an utopia, it's not an ideology. That's why it is not perfect - nothing is - but at least it tries to improve things (and it certainly improved things if you compare it to feudalism or tribal economies). Seeking refuge in an utopia may be nice, but it's just a way to avoid taking difficult decisions. Luis rib 10:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No means to disprove or prove it? Communism is a pre-thought economic theory, capitalism is more of labelling of a pre-existing formula, ie. chaos theory in economics. Communism is an economic theory and pre-conceived system,, and therefore the article shoud concern it as such. Capitalism is also an economic system, and should be perceived as such. You can't demand that only the material on real-life communism be implemented, because you are forgetting that communism doesn't need to be an economic system of a nation to count as a valid theory...free software, kibbutzes, anyone? The Garden of Eden is not an ideology based on sociopolitical science.

Avoid taking difficult decisions? Are you kidding me? Oh well, continue in your defeatist attitude, but the etymylogy still remains. Communism is an economic theory, which has real life implementations, capitalism follows something similar. As long as capital (assigning an absolute value to materials to invest in) is used, its capitalism. As long as there is a commune-based society, with the correct conditions (if someone compromises, it is no longer communism), that is communism. Communism just happens to apply in more narrow situations. -- Natalinasmpf 19:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communism compared to Fascism, etc.

I know this will anger many people here, but shouldn't there be a section comparing Communism to other ideologies which are viewed as totalitarian? Or, if not here, maybe on Communist state? After all, it is a criticism that is often made. Also, it appears on Fascism, so at least there should be a link to that page. Waiting for your comments... Luis rib 11:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, maybe on communist state, though I still wouldn't support that unless it was a criticism of the blurring of class lines under left and right forms of bonapartism (as stalin and hitler did), and its dangers as a barrier to progress and a road to totalitarianism. Speaking of which, I wonder if wikipedia has an article on bonapartism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'll consider it for Communist state then. BTW, Stalin was y far not the only one to behave depotically; Lenin already exhibited such traits, though in a milder form. Also, Pol Pot was probably even worse than Stalin (at least in my opinion), and many of his policies had a Communist background: elimination of bourgeoisie (ok, he did it in a radical way), elimination of money, total egalitarianism (i.e. everyone had a number), ... Sure, it was a perversion of pure communism , but since pure communism is utopian, everything is a perversion. Luis rib 21:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stalin was the only one. As for pol pot, he was also a bonapartist, and his main class was the peasantry, that was what led to the perversion. The peasantry is even more reactionary than the bourgeoisie if allowed to take power. But anyways. I do think that if we go into a deep discussion of why things went so wrong it would be a very useful addition. By deep discussion, I mean more than just "communism=against human nature=totalitarianism" :P-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the following: you (or somebody else) said that you couldn't take the USSR or China or Cambodia as an example of a communist economy because they had tried to implement it in countries that were not truly capitalist yet - and that's why it failed economically (let's forget about the human rights issues for a sec). Yet wouldn't that imply that if Communists want to succeed, they should support Capitalism in every way they can since they know that the more the society becomes capitalist, the sooner capitalism will crumble under its own contradictions and the sooner communism will emerge? Luis rib 10:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see this earlier, sorry. No, I don't believe I've ever said that you couldn't take them as communist for that reason, but in Marxist terms, that was a big part of why they failed. Cambodia I wouldn't even consider a Communist movement, let alone state. Both China and Cambodia began from the getgo with a bonapartist view favouring the reactionary peasantry (though cambodia abandoned this in favour of a brutal peasant dictatorship as soon as it could). The same peasantry that hates the cities, and longs for the old days. It is not their culture that places their economic interests in the camp against progress and the future, but their economic interest which create that reactionary culture. They are an obsolete class, and cannot play any major role in the march forwards. In Russia, they were involved (hence the sickle), but they were meant to be on the fringes until the proletariat could take over entirely. Of course, whether I agree with any of these strategies is not an issue, the reality is that whatever strategies were taken, none of these states were Communist because their "goal" was not achieved. That goal is more or less global abolition of class society, money and states. With a few minor exceptions, just as today there are a few minor semi-feudal pockets in the world.

As for supporting the bourgeoisie, back in their hayday, yes, support for their struggles generally meant support for their anti-monarchist, anti-aristocratic revolts. Today however, and in Russia this was particularly at issue, Capitalism has degenerated to the point where there is no motive to "rock the boat" for them much anymore. It is preferable to strike a deal with the despots, and graft capitalism onto despotism, rather than risk an explosion of democratic control. That role as democratizing force can no longer be played by the bourgeoisie. In third world countries, as Russia and China were and some say are, the bourgeoisie preferred to ensure that role for itself, the role of despots, by subordinating the country to imperialist powers rather than developing its infrastructure in any meaningful way. Those nations became nothing more than raw resource buffets, and never moved on. Looking at Russia, we can see that quite clearly, despite the huge problems, the tasks that the bourgeoisie were supposed to carry out were only possible under the control of a shaky alliance of proletariat and peasantry. Even today, the Russia bourgeoisie has still not moved beyond their stagnant nature. This is why today "supporting Capitalism" is not possible. Communists believe we are actually a part of those contradictions within Capitalism, at least a magnifying force. Wow... that was long, I hope it answers a few questions and makes some sense.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, in response to Luis' original argument, you're basically asking, shouldn't the immune system support viruses and bacteria and pathogens in every way because the they do so, the sooner the evolutionary drive to develop a better immune system emerges? The idea is to fight the pathogens, and so is the same thing for communism. -- Natalinasmpf 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarianism and Utopianism are Sociological impossibilities

Totalitiarianism is sociologically impossible, and has existed no where except in the works of fiction, and the minds of writers such as Orwell. Utopianism, which often seems to be similiar to totalitarianism; is the same. The terms should be totally striked from the article, atleast when talking of scientific communism, such as Marxism(-Leninism). --Mista-X 17:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which terms? The term "utopianism"/"utopian", or the terms classified as being "utopian"? Also totalitarianism, yes that is true, it means when the government has total control (to an extent), bu t the idea "approaching totalitarianism" could be a true statement. Generally, if someone is starving, but say, has only been starving for a week, and if no one continues to give him food, it would be correct to say he's approaching death, no? -- Natalinasmpf 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communism is Totalitarian

Unfortunately, the commies here on Wikipedia prevent communism from rightfully being treated in the same manner as nazism and fascism. Therefore, the crimes of communism are whitewashed, rationalized and equivocated away.

--Unsigned comment by User:212.202.51.84 Slac speak up! 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC).

To be frank, it would be nice if the editing process on this page could be something other than a "dialectic" between communist-sympathetic and communist-antipathetic users. But I don't particularly think name-calling is going to help anything much. Slac speak up! 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crimes? Or hijackings by state capitalists? -- Natalinasmpf 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The commies" That is just plain ignorant and babyish. Just because you may be a patriot of democracy or some such sh!t does not mean that you are right. As a matter of fact it seems that the USA tries to be totalitarian. They invade countries whose form of government they disagree with. Too bad that it was impossible for them to invade the USSR for all that time.

• Talk:Communism/Archive1

• Talk:Communism/Archive2

• Talk:Communism/Archive3

• Talk:Communism/Archive4

• Talk:Communism/Archive5

Recent reverts

...requires greater rationality or wisdom for the planners, or voters, or workers' council members, than is consistent with the bounded rationality of the species.

If this wording is seen to be imperfect, the concept must be expressed. One of the obvious failings of communism is that not only are humans not morally capable of intituting equality, they are also intellectually incapable. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a problem is the phrase bounded rationality, which comes from a generally antipathetic ideological position, and also implies that communism is somehow inherently naive and/or not humanly possible.Grant65 (Talk) 13:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism comes from "critics," see further discussion under that subheading below. Every ideological subject in wiki has a "criticism of" heading, as do scientific theories such as Darwinism, etc. And the criticism expressed there alwats comes from "antipathetic...positions" because that's where one would expect criticism to come from. Why is that a problem?

--Christofurio 20:11, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

If humans are not morally capable of "intituting" equality, then what could be? Equality in this sense is not even well-defined, and given a moral definition of fairness (of which there are a few contenders), humans could certainly approach the goal as they do any other.--Csmcsm 02:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps they could approach equality for themselves as individuals, but it would be more difficult to decide for others. Consider how individual the decision of whether to work an extra hour is, or to take if off, or to volunteer an hour. Prices, in the context of freedom, can aid in the decision, but ultimately the decision is individual. Equality is easy to apply if all individuals are identical, but the evidence is that even "identical" twins, aren't.--Silverback 07:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really have to stop using that 'twins' line. Physical makeup has nothing to do with equality (or equity, which is what we should be talking about). Certainly any normative view on either would be better than what capitalism has achieved so far.--Csmcsm 20:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism isn't done yet. Equality in poverty is better than inequality in wealth if one accepts the norm of envy, but why be so materialistic. Do you have any evidence for the certainty you assert, I doubt it can be achieved short of a tautology?--Silverback 22:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is clarified as a criticism. And of course communism is inherently naive and/or not humanly possible, thats the point! ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Sam. Thanks for the support. Criticism of an ideological position often cocomes from an "antipathetic ideological position"! What a shock. The NPOV thing to do is to state the various antipathetic positions fairly, and some of our communist friends seem averse to having that done here. --Christofurio 17:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The criticism is so naive I don't understand how such clever people as you, Sam can fall for it. Please explain how communism requires greater rationality for voters, council members, planners, etc. than, say, for President of the US of A, the SEC commission and Federal Reserve?

Let us forget for a second that the article is about communist ideology, not about its communist state. I understand that much of criticism comes from the thought that communists were planning everything, and this is humanly impossible, no doubt. But this is a naive college-grade understanding of communism, similar to the rumors that communists have everything common: common wives, common shoes and common toothbrushes. Another misunderstanding is that plans were something chiseled in stone. Of course there were not. They were always corrected through the course of the time. Sitll, please, this is not criticism of communism. This is criticism af any centrally planned economy, and hence belongs to the latter article.

Still another point, who told you that in communist state everything was planned for best of all people? That would require inhuman amount of planning for sure. In Soviet Union the planning was for good of the state in the first turn. People were treated as livestock; bare minimality. Mikkalai 19:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten and don't plan to forget that this article is about communist ideology, and I've done nothing to try to change the focus to communist states. The point, though, is that communism as described in the rest of this very article would require a sort of planning that would supplant markets and for-profit exchanges, rather than the sort that works through that medium. Most actual "communist" states give up on this idea pretty quickly -- it didn't take Lenin himself very long to retreat into the New Economic Policy. When I say such things, I often hear, "Oh yes, but next time will be different, we'll have majority rule." Sorry, but the problem is with the agenda. (There are other problems as well, having to do with the dynamics of revolutions, but that is the problem targeted by this criticism.) And, yes, this criticism belongs also in other articles. It doesn't follow it ought to be deleted from this one. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well the correlation between a command economy and communism is obviously that all prominent Communist states (before liberalization) have implemented a command economy. There has never been a country where the final classless communist phase was achieved and the government lost all its form, as Marx puts it. Trey Stone 03:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And one more: about alleged imposibility of total planning. If it were so, modern microchips could not possibly have beed designed and you wouldn't have this wonderful computer to type your naive arguments in. Ever heard about hierarchical approach to compex tasks? Mikkalai 19:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The distinction remains between planning within the context created by market exchanges and planning deprived of that context. You might spend a lot of time and effort devising a new and better microchip -- you must eventually sibmit it to the ultimate test of whether other freely contracting parties want to invest in its mass production, and their decision will have a lot to do with whether other freely contracting parties will want to buy it. Planning as a way of disrupting that higgle-haggle is uniformly a disaster, for reasons at whicht he critique in this article has hinted. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that few people have heard of "bounded rationality" and even fewer would agree that it is an accurate reflection of human beings. Maybe I should try inserting a bit of kitsch marxist jargon, just to see how long it lasts, on the Friedrich von Hayek page. That would be analagous to this new passage. Sam and Christofurio have illustrated their concept of "NPOV" remarkably well I think. Grant65 (Talk) 01:30, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that I cease struggling with this addition. It dawned upon me that it perfectly shows the brain damage of the "critics". Mikkalai 03:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good to see the depth of your commitment to civility. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

As opposed to those brilliant Communist theorists (whose favored states only collapsed due to imperialist pressure) Trey Stone 03:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marx had no chance to favor communist Mongolia and China (which is going to kick someone's ass yet). Mikkalai 03:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Communist in political structure, reformist in economic structure. Trey Stone 04:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, as communism is fundamentally an economic system, and less than 50% of the Chinese economy is owned by the state — a smaller proportion than in many OECD countries in the 1970s — China isn't even socialist, let alone communist any more. But maybe it will be again. For the moment it's a capitalist dictatorship of the neo-bourgeoisie ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

And oh, some bright kiddo wrote in comments: revert to Spade. punishment is not an intrinsic part of communist ideology. I guess in his study of communist ideology he didn't reach the chapter about dictatorship of the proletariat yet. Mikkalai

Perhaps that was written in response to whomever wrote this inanity "Lacking economic interests, there are two other major incentives: fear of punishment (as in slavery) and common benevolence of people (which is disputable)." I'm not sure what system or ideology was being talked about, but it was apparently written by a person unfamiliar with power, sex, status or any other of the basis of freshman psych, advertising or anthropology.--Silverback 05:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Sex as driving force of economic development! Dare to write a wikiarticle on this? Mikkalai 06:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a language barrier, you brought up non-economic incentives, or did you mean something different by "lacking economic interests". Your concept, whatever it was, was not stated very clearly in english, although you apparently don't see that.--Silverback 08:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You got me here. I was trying to correct the phrase "that it would remove incentives necessary for productivity". As you pointed out himself, there are plenty of various incentives, and it is ridiculous to think that communism removed all of them. You are so involved in proving that I am wrong that you don't see that the phrasing lacks merit, to say it civilisedly. But like I said, I will no longer edit this piece, an example of brain damage of critics. Mikkalai 18:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have two things to say here. #1, that central planning isn't supposed to be the end result in the communist ideology. That is socialism. And that anarchists often disregard this at all. #2: Dictatorship of the proleteriat, and punishment is also in itself socialism. Marxist-Leninism proposes using socialism as a interim period between capitalism and communism, so the concept that punishment and dictatorship of the proleteriat being associated with communism isn't that wrong, just that its meant as a intermediate measure, not the end measure. -- Natalinasmpf 22:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The slavemasters whip

Please see Talk:Communism#Human_nature. This ridiculous false dicotomy between "fear of the whip" and "common benevolence" (what the heck is that?) as forms of incentives is insane. Please look up reinforcement, Operant conditioning, and economics. Fear of punishment is not a major factor in the economies of the west (outside of prison, perhaps), and I think its easier to describe say.. Pol Pots communism as having been a slavery-based economy than even the pre-civil war united states south (even ancient egypt or feudalism had alot more to the economy than fear as an incentive, and not only financialy). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 08:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you on about? And what does it have to do with exogenous, anachronistic and hostile RCT concepts/jargon being used in an article about communism? Grant65 (Talk) 10:02, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

There was no dichotomy. Even less it was applied to the modern West. These were examples of other possible incentives, in addition to economic. The sole problem is my bad command of English. Sorry for confusion. Next time when dealing with complicated issues I will begin with a proposal at the talk page. Mikkalai 18:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear what I'm on about, and it has nothing to do w anything "exogenous" ;). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human nature

To such objections, communists reply that human nature is misrepresented by capitalists. For example, under slavery, slave owners said blacks were lazy and stupid and that whippings were necessary for productivity. Thus, communists say under what they consider capitalist wage slavery, that the same type of arguments are made as an excuse for the capitalists to expropriate surplus value from workers. This fails to take into account the role of reinforcers in Behavioral psychology, and confuses punishing reinforcers (whippings) with positive reinforcers (money).

I think starvation could be considered a punishing reinforcer. The slavemaster never threatened to starve his property. And wouldn't the food and shelter provided to the slave be a positive reinforcer just as money to buy food and shelter be to the wage slave? If capitalism was all positive reinforcers, the enclosure of the commons would never have been necessary. Ruy Lopez 19:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I pointed out the weakness of this section, but decided since it was such a poor argument that it was likely not verifiable, and was probably just an idea one of the editors had. If someone can cite it, they can feel free to restore it. My critique based on behavioural psychology certainly will be finding its way back into the text, as lack of proper incentive (positive reinforcement) is one of the more glaring logical errors of Communism (right up there with atheism). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you are most welcome to re-insert that famous Straw man into the article. But rest assured that I will also insert the 4 different communist refutations of it (yes, that argument is flawed in four different ways, and one of the counter-arguments mentions the fact that communism does, in fact, offer positive reinforcement to the people participating in it - while also relying on human rationality). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

?how is human psychology a straw man? And how does communism reward superior performance? Isn't that in contridiction to "to each according to his need"? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Sam, "superior performance" was both needed and rewarded in the Soviet/Maoist-type systems because they started from low bases of economic development. A corollary of this is that those underdeveloped societies were never communist in the sense that Marx himself understood communism. The societies which Marx actualy had in mind were the most developed countries. (The reasons why the first successful revolutions did not occur in the developed nations are a whole different debate.) Although all basic needs, and a wide range of consumer goods/services, would be available in a truly communist society, achievers would still be rewarded by accolades/ fame/etc. Of course some people always want more of any material thing than they can ever use, but as Engels said, in the higher phase of communism, they would simply be "laughed at". (Presumably because of the operant conditioning of communism *LOL*) I know it's hard to get your head around the idea that we already live in a state of abundance, albeit one scrambled and disfigured by (economic) class relations, but I suggest you think about it.Grant65 (Talk) 10:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your reply is nonsensical. We live in a state of abundance because we have a powerful economic base, derived from capitalism. I am in Germany, and while the country on the whole is well off, the eastern half had (and still has) a serious disadvantage due to having been ruined by communism. And if Marxism supplies "operant conditioning" of "fame" instead of cash rewards, why were even ballerina's and Olympic athletes (positions rewarded largely by fame in the west) especially well paid in communism, while "collective" farm laborers were periodically starved to death w artificial famines regardless of how hard they worked, often on the very land which had been stolen from them by the "egalitarianism" of communism. I think that's the sort of fame they would have preferred to do without, and has little to do with either business psychology or operant conditioning. 10 pounds of propaganda doesn't buy you one pound of bread. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree with both of you, we live in a time of scarcity. Demand for goods and services would be much higher if the prices were set to zero, and assuming the supply would be insufficient at that price, what goods and services were available would have to be rationed by some other means.--Silverback 10:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. First, scarcity and abundance are relative. Second, economics is all about the allocation of resources.Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It is about the allocation of scarce resources. "Abundant" resources in the economic sense, don't need to be allocated.--Silverback 12:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And your point is? BTW, do you mind not inserting your responses in the middle of other people's posts? IMO it makes the page hard to read.Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

My point economists are concerned with scarcity, if something must be allocated it is still scarce, even if some consider it relatively abundant. It is part of the basic definition of modern economics and price theory. BTW, I don't mind not inserting, but I disagree and find it more a more readable way to respond to particular points in multi-paragraph passages, since the response can be put immediately after the point. But as we have just illustrated, the value of that is subjective, you find it less valuable even though it took me more labor to produce.--Silverback 17:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the DDR was never communist in any meaningful sense, because the system there was exogenous ;-), i.e. it existed because of a lot of men wearing fur hats, carrying burpguns. Unless, that is, you think the KPD would have won a free election, or been swept to power in a proletarian revolution in East Germany in, say, 1946 without the Soviet presence? No, I thought not. Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We do not live in a time of scarcity. The major problem capitalism has is overproduction (what some call underconsumption, which is a different side of the same coin). This is not a wacky left-wing theory, pretty much everyone agrees with this as it is so blindingly obvious, although the *causes* are disputed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Jack, what's your take on when this economy is going to turn around?

WELCH: I think that you have a telecom shut down, you have a high tech slowdown, you have a lot of capacity. So you got weak pricing power.... You?ve got globalization. You've got global capacity everywhere...There are plants all over China that just built 20 million things that are coming in to this or that, so pricing pressure is what we're facing. The reason why jobs are tough is not volume. The reason why jobs are tough is there's no profitability.

luke} A lot of people think that human nature is inherantly greedy and that is the main arguement that communism can't work. i disagree, human nature can change. i refuse to believe that the British binge drinking or the US gun crime cultures are there forever and cannot change. Lenin turned the entire russian anti-semitic attitudes around in a few short revolutionary years, unfortunately Stalin reverted to it back.

-- former GE CEO Jack Welch on Hardball[8]

The economists' notion of scarcity has nothing to do one way or another with the sort of over-production that Welch was talking about there. Your confusion is also indicated by the phrase "time of scarcity". Nobody maintains that the early 21st century is uniquely a time of scarcity -- the point rather, is that every time has been a time of scarcity, because demands are capable of infinite expansion, supplies are not. --68.9.148.204 16:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the italicised section in the passage below:

Objectivists and other laissez-faire capitalists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature". More specifically they make the claim that communism denies individuals the means necessary for their survival. So from an objectivist perspective the concept of "human nature" does not refer to a persistent attribute of human psychology but rather a very real physical necessity. It comes from the belief that a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes. And if the fruits of his labour are taken from him against his will, he will have no incentive to work. Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, mass behavior will change accordingly.

I have an idea of the point that someone is trying to make here, but it doesn't come over well or NPOV. The idea that a worker can enjoy the profit from his hard work in a given capitalist relations of production is strongly libertarian POV. To say simply that a worker should enjoy those fruits isn't an objection to communism, but rather exactly what communists argue (see Labour theory of value. This contribution also mixes up communism as a future system of global common ownership with communism as the system implemented by self-declared communist parties. And yes, of course you can argue that they end up the same in the end, but others can argue the opposite... The addition also doesn't segue into the rest of the paragraph that was there to begin with. I wasn't able to work out a way of rephrasing the point properly in a way that avoided these problems, so have removed the section for now. Mattley 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's very bad to remove the whole thing before discussing it. Sure, the paragraph was pretty badly written. But the criticism it makes is valid, and is indeed often made. What you claim is "libertarian POV" is actually a pretty widely held view, usually called meritocracy. It argues that those that work harder get a higher salary. This is not at all the Communist point of view. You can argue one is better than the other, but it is POV to remove a valid and widely claimed criticism. Luis rib 19:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib, I am sorry you think we should allow badly written, ambiguous and POV statements to remain in articles whilst we try to work out exactly what the anonymous contributor meant to say. I take the opposite view. As I said, I wasn't able to work out a way of rephrasing it appropriately, but I did take the trouble to explain at some length what I thought was wrong with it for the benefit of anyone who might want to correct those failings and restore the comment in some other form. Perfectly reasonable behaviour, I would think. Read back over the above. The part I object to as reflecting a libertarian POV is the part that states that this particular criticism 'comes from the belief that a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes'. Since objectivists argue for capitalist relations of production, this statement effectively endorses the view that it is possible for workers to enjoy the fruits of their labour within capitalism and rejects a different and opposite view, embodied in the Labour theory of value, which has it that capitalism is based on not returning to workers the full value of their labour. I never argued that the former POV was not widely held, but rather that it is POV. We are endorsing a particular POV there. To be NPOV that comment would need to be restated in order to make it apparent that it was a POV that was being reflected, rather than simply a statement of fact. But the problems with the above contribution go beyond that, and beyond the issues I noted in my earlier contribution. Even if it were established that the statement that 'a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes' was a meritocratic argument, even if it were identified as a particular POV, it would still be an arguement that surely did not apply exclusively to communism but to any society that practised progressive taxation. What about this comment 'they make the claim that communism denies individuals the means necessary for their survival.' What? How does it do that? Where do they claim this and why? And this one: 'the concept of "human nature" does not refer to a persistent attribute of human psychology but rather a very real physical necessity.' What on earth does that mean? It isn't at all obvious from the comment itself. So, given all of that, I'm not making any apologies for removing the passages in question. Mattley 20:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand your reasons better now. I tried to change the human nature part a bit. Each paragraph shows both sides' views now. Also added meritocracy, including your comment that taxation could also achieve it (although I personnally don't believe it). I think it's more NPOV now, but feel free to change stuff. I also deleted the second part of the violence section, which was a critique on capitalism and had nothing to do with communism. It should be added to the capitalism page. Luis rib 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

communism and economics

The basic criticism that it would be impossible to plan a communist society is fine. Someone wants it here, and it belongs here.

Nonetheless, it is replete with a total lack of understanding of Marxism, communism and so forth. These critics of communism know next-to-nothing about Marxism or communism, as I have stated before.

The second and third sentences are: "Theoretically, in a market system, scarce skills and resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands. Without an efficient market system, prices can send the wrong signals to consumers and planners, resulting in decisions that don't reflect the choices they would make if they knew the actual costs and competing demands for those resources."

First of all the idea that "scarce...resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands" pertains to the capitalist system, not the "market" system. If one looks at the life of a commodity as production -> exchange -> consumption, how is the exchange/market system of the USSR different than the US? A worker goes into a store and exchanges rubles (or dollars) for a loaf of bread. They are both market systems (of course, it should go without saying that the USSR socialist system would be different than a communist system).

Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Regards, the USSR, the difference is how the price is set, when prices are set artificially low resources are wasted, such as demand being so high that people have to spend considerable time in queues and the supply running out before all demand is satisfied. Another example was the price of clothing being set so low for new clothing that consumers used them as rags for cleaning autos or floors, since unimproved fabric was not any cheaper, and the clothing price did not reflect the resources used to improve the fabric.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being that "economics" is a word invented by right-leaning people in the field studying what everyone at one time called political economy, in a narrow sense economics is the idea that the study of (political) economy is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. However, economics is more often used in the broader sense. Probably the best question I could ask that would show your first sentence ("Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources") is incorrect is this - what was economics the study of prior to the publication of Gossen's work in 1854? Because absolutely no one was studying the "allocation of scarce resources" prior to that.

How is prices being set too low or too high different in the USSR and the US? I read the Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning and it said Wal-Mart had said it set prices too high in the last month. So setting the price too high in the US or USSR was the same thing (of course, the word price had slightly different meanings in different economies). No one would disagree that errors are made and capitalist or socialist systems sometimes misprice something. Another example would be a computer error pricing a gallon of milk at 10 cents in a supermarket. And socialist economies made errors like this as well. But I think we are talking about systematic problems during normal operations here, not the occasional error that pops up.

You neglect the point, the problems I pointed out were an imbalance of supply and demand because the communist system set the price with some other goal in mind than balancing the two. The pricing errors of Walmart resulted in lost business and oversupply for their prices, they responded by lowering the price and altering their supply. In a communist system which sets prices by the labor theory of value, (not that the USSR did that), there could be an imbalance between supply and demand even though the price was set correctly according to the theory, therefore there is no correction to be made, fixing the problem by changing the price would be switching to a different theory of value.--Silverback 12:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the communist point of view, there is no such thing as the setting of a price. A price is known the minute the producer is finished creating the commodity, the price is the number of homogeneous necessary labor hours are congealed in the commodity. You can't "mis-price" something systematically, since there is no such thing as mispricing, really. You can produce a "commodity" that no one wants however. There can't be an imbalance between supply and demand since every exchange is equal, there can only be commodities produced that no one wants - something that happens in capitalism as well.

In fact, this would be less of a problem in a socialist/communist economy. In a capitalist economy, capitalists compete to sell commodities which people don't want. It's like musical chairs - there are more commodities produced than buyers. This is not a problem in socialist and communist economies, nothing creates conditions which would lead to overproduction. Without this competition, there can be more cooperation and more planning coordinating production for exchange (or in communism production for need). Ruy Lopez 13:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I think you may be implying another point about how prices act as triggers. But you didn't say so, so I responded to what you said.

As I said earlier, I think a lot of people here know little of these subjects. The idea that economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources didn't even begin to arise until 1854. Prior to that, another theory reigned, and many people still believe the original theory, not the new STV/marginalist one. It seems to me that a lot of people here don't disagree with the original theory, they don't even know it existed or the history of the theories that they themselves are describing. I feel my knowledge of these fields is inadequate, but several Wikipedia contributors on this page and others seem to know less about this than what even I. Ruy Lopez 10:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, that this is how capitalist systems works is just of one various competing theories. Of course, it is the one capitalists within the capitalists system prefer (although not necessarily workers). The early bourgeois economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc. certainly did not believe this, and in fact shared Marx's view that value came from labor, that prices were determined by labor time and so forth. In fact, this was the accepted view when Marx began his studies and Marx agreed with it. There really was no argument against this until Hermann Heinrich Gossen published The Development of the Laws of Exchange among Men and of the Consequent Rules of Human Action, the ideas of which were fleshed out by the subjective theory of value school (marginalists). In fact, Marxism (and all of classical economics prior to HH Gossen and friends) is counterposed to this new theory of value.

Anyhow, that's just the second and third sentence. As I said, the basic ideas of this section are fine, the criticism that communism is not plannable, but STV (marginalists) ideas are just that - ideas, theories, not fact and should be marked as such. So I will be rewriting this section. Ruy Lopez 09:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you would explain how communist planning is done on a large scale without a state, how consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized, etc. I've no problem with you labeling the criticism as theory, albeit, a well developed theory that is able to explain a lot of the behavior of prices, consumers and suppliers as well as the problems and inefficiencies that sometimes occur. In your rewrite it would help if you could criticize communism from each of what you see as the competing theories of capitalism, so we can evaluate their perspectives. --Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marx said he did not write recipes for cookshops of the future, and communists generally do not spell out or dictate how things would be done in the future. However, in the past and present communists can point to existing models of say large scale planning, like the creation of the Linux operating system (the original author of which had a father who was a prominent communist). So-called primitive communist societies are other examples, as are things like Amish barn-raisings and so forth.

I've been more interested in what I would call misstatements about capitalism, or theories about capitalism which I do not share. Consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized in a capitalist economy as in a socialist economy - a product that can't be exchanged is not a commodity. Production decision makers in a capitalist economy and socialist economy would draw the same conclusions from the same data. STV/marginalism is certainly a well-developed theory. Anti-capitalists perceive many holes in it though. For example, the theory of marginal utility was developed to explain prices. Except prices are what display what the marginal utility of a commodity are. This is tautological - marginal utility explains prices which explain what the marginal utility of something is which is reflected in its price and so on and so forth. There are other holes in the theory which I won't go into at the moment, as they'd take some time to explain.

For example, from the anti-capitalist view, if inflation, the value of gold whatnot remains stable, then the price of a commodity is obvious. A capitalist should know exactly what the price of a commodity is upon production without any guesswork as it is very obvious. The *only* thing he doesn't know is if it will sell (e.g. be exchanged) or not. The idea that the commodity would be put on the market and the price raised or lowered "according to the market" is seen as laughable by anti-capitalists. It is a completely different theory about how production and markets work. Ruy Lopez 11:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the first paragraph is fairly straightforward, but the next three paragraphs having to do with the skyscraper are vague and make little sense. It is about how in capitalism, a skyscraper can be planned better than in communism. There are three paragraphs leading up to an argument and then - no argument. The last paragraph is leading up to this non-existent argument: "Critics contend that the implementation of communism in the sense described above would involve supplanting precisely these market and contract conditions that make planning possible. It would be planning instead of haggling, rather than planning within the context of haggling. That is what they contend is not practicable." OK, we have an example of a skyscraper, a description of how capitalists build a skyscraper and then a simple assertion that STVers don't think communists could build a skyscraper. The reason why is not given.

I know Amish people get together and do barn-raisings in basically a communist manner - each gives according to ability and each gets according to need. Of course, a skyscraper is more complex than a barn, but if one looks back 75 years, the tallest "skyscraper" in the world was less than 800 feet high, and most of what has enabled taller buildings to be built have been advances in engineering, and the factors leading to one wanting to go to the trouble of building such a large building. Beyond the architect, building a skyscraper is not that complex - you build a floor, then build another floor, and just keep going up. Nonetheless, all of this is more of an opinion than a reason. I see no argument made here. Ruy Lopez 10:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticism Comes From Critics

I'm responsible for the skyscraper example -- inspired by a dialogue with Mihnea on another article's talk page. The point, here, isn't that communists can't make one, but that the when and where of that resource allocation would be arbitrary and likely misdirected in the absense of market signals. (I would expect that the Amish anarcho-communist barn raisings respond to less formal signals than either a central planners' or a capitalistic skyscraper. The informality is affordable, because a barn is fairly easy to dismantle, the wood can be re-used elsewhere. Dismantling a skyscraper is a different matter.) Of course, communists might take the Stakhanovite approach -- "the more skyscrapers, the better, because it embodies our labor," -- and end up with empty buildings blotting out the sky and a shortage of steel, etc. that would have been very useful elsewhere. When you change the subject and start talking about diamond prices you've lost me. That's releant to articles about the labor theory of value, etc. -- here we're simply trying to state a common objection to communism to make this article complete.

Of course, planners might do a survey to find out whether there is enough demand for office space in a certain location to put a skyscraper there. But that concedes the point that its value comes from that demand, not from congealed labor -- and the survey data make more sense within a price system which includes comparative rents, etc., than in the absense of such signals anyway, which of course is the point. --Christofurio 16:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why is everyone saying I am changing the subject to diamonds, I am not the one who mentioned scarce resources.

I am glad of the point you made in the second paragraph as I have to explain less now. I would actually prefer to use the example of a cruise ship to a skyscraper as I feel it is simpler and less confusing, but I'll stick with the skyscraper example for now. Yes, lets say the planners would do a survey and see there was enough demand for office space. Let's even say that the skyscraper builders even got people to agree to pay them when the skyscraper was delivered. Of course the object has to be in demand, I've already said that. I don't think you understand LTV, this is in Capital Volume I, Chapter I. A commodity is not a commodity unless it is exchanged, and it won't be exchanged unless there is a demand for it. I can go into my room and paint a bad painting all day, and if no one wanted to buy it it would not be a commodity, it would just be something I worked on for myself (which no one wanted). Work people do for themselves, and not for exchange, is not a commodity. If I knit myself a sweater, I have not made a commodity as I've done it for my own use. If no one wants the skyscraper, it is not a commodity, it was something people built for fun or whatever. If people want it, then it is a commodity.

Communists think prices simply mask the homogeneous necessary labor time congealed in a commodity. So a price comparison in many ways is comparing a skyscraper or ship that takes 10,000 man-hours or person-hours to build, to a skyscraper or ship that takes 11,000 person-hours to build. The latter one would obviously be priced more. And if one is a William Levitt type who puts down buildings one after the other after the other, one has a pretty good idea what the homogenous necessary labor time to build such a building is ahead of time. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand the LTV very well. I don't think there's any reason to prove that to you, because the point here is simply to include a fair statement of a historically important objection to communism. You keep saying you don't want it to be here because it comes from the adversaries of communism. Of couse it does! And if you look at the "criticism" section of the article on anarcho-capitalism you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of that view. If you look at the "criticism" section of the articles on Darwinian evolution, you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of those views. And so forth. That is what a criticism section is for.

The claim that prices have information value concerns prices specifically. To the extent Marxists mean something else by "value" then "price," then they aren't really contradicting this point. Whatever you may want to say about value, price comes largely from market demand -- and that fact implies that it carries information about market demand. You say "communists think" differently. Okay. Most of the article is devoted to how communists think. Why should there not be, as there is elsewhere, a section for how the critics of communism think. Why is it an objection to any view on either side to say that communists and non-communists don't think the same way?

A few words more about skyscrapers. The problem I raised isn't the possibility that people would build a skyscraper for fun. It is the question of knowing whether the use of resources for this purpose rather than some other is optimal. You say nothing that gives me any reason to believe there is an alternative to a pricing system that would do this better. Any survey that would make any sense would be set against a background pricing system. Likewise with Levittown. The GIs came home to America after the war and wanted to get married, have kids, 'settle down' as the saying went. The building boom fed off such demand, and the housing prices that came about as a result thereof.

There was also statist interference in various ways. If we find Levittown to be a sub-optimal use of resources, I suggest that we might look at the planning implied in that interference. --Christofurio 13:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall objecting to the inclusion of any criticism except in the case where communism is confused with a socialist state. Other than that, I have simply pointed out criticisms were in the wrong sub-sections of the criticism section.

It wasn't, though. I was making various points in the human nature section because limits to rationality are as much an issue about human nature. Also, to the extent communism is supposed to be arrived at through a socialist route -- criticizing one is criticizing the other, and the distinction is pointless. Also, yopu've interpolated statements into every effort to state the Austrian criticism of communism in order to distract from any effort to get it fairly stated.

Suppose, for purposes of comparison, we were writing a passage about criticisms of Darwinism. I might write, "There are defenders of the views of Larmark, who believe that acquired characteristics can be inherited." Would it be fair for you to change that to this? "There are, though Darwinians disagree, defenders of the view of Larmark, with whom Darwinians disagree, who believe although Darwinians disagree that acquired characteristics can be inherited, although Darwinians disagree." Does that sound NPOV? AT what point are such continued interruptions of a point simply to state and restate and re-restate the mere fact of disagreement an unfair undermining of an effort to make a point that ought to be made? Frankly, I believe there is such a point and you have crossed it. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Price does not carry information about market demand, only exchange carries information about market demand. Price contains no information, the only case you can make for that is a price of zero contains information versus a non-zero price (from a 5 cent stick of gum to a million dollar house). Price is just a convulted method of expressing homoegenous necessary labor

time congealed in a commodity.

You are right in a sense about exchange, perhaps however, you were missing the implicit sense of prices as market prices set by exchanges in the market, not just the arbitrary price that someone might be asking or offering. The market price does carry information about demand. Of course. illiquid and non-commodity markets are less informative. But setting prices on labor alone will lead to very uneconomic decisions and lower levels of individual satisfaction, and less optimal macro-economic results in terms of gross product and efficiency. You would be wasting the medium of exchange (money) as a surrogate for measuring and assessing total resources, labor, and relative demand for them in informing individual distributed decision making. --Silverback 01:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not miss the idea that prices are set by exchange, I just disagree with it. The value of something is set the moment the commodity is finished being produced. The only question then is whether or not it is exchangable with something of equal value. If it's not, its not a commodity. It is just a completely different theory. In the Marxian theory, uneconomic decisions and sub-optimal macro-economic results come from a variety of sources, including capitalism's need to manufacture commodities which will not be exchangable. As I said, this actually isn't totally a Marxian theory, even GE CEO Jack Welch and many others have conceded this, or at least conceded all of the observations that would lead one to this conclusion. As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that? That's a very, very tenuous hypothesis as there is no way of measuring it, it is just based on a hypothesis from the conclusions of the other theory. And again, in your theory you claim prices somehow magically contain information on resources, labor and relative demand, but of course, you're unable to separate them into components since only the invisible hand of the marketplace knows. Marxian theory dispels with such mysticism - it deals just with what is known - will the commodity be exchangable? How much labor time went into creating the commodity? Natural resources have no value other than the labor-time congealed in them during extraction. I understand the STV/marginal theory, the older theory, which Marx subscribed to, simply disagrees with it. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't "understand" it if you need to characterize it as "magical". The market price of something is the price at whichit is being exchanged or exchangeable. You are making a pointless distinction. You seem to object to the significance of exchange prices on the grounds that they involve only a "binary decision" along the lines accept/reject. But ... so what? Digital computers work on the basis of binary on/off switches. Enough binary choices and one has a calculation -- and a result that carries information. What is "magical" about this? That you don't like it, I accept. But you make negative characterizations about its being "magic" and "mysticism" which turns out to be just new ways of restating the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the information-carrying significance of prices. Exchanged prices, of course. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as the use of resources, due to the nature of our economic system, the only way of knowing whether the use of the resource of labor-time is "optimal" or not is whether the commodity made with the labor-time is exchangable. I don't even think the word optimal is that great - optimal implies different levels of something whereas there is only one arbiter - exchange. An ounce of gold can be exchanged for 450 dollars, or 425 euros, but one is not more optimal than the other, they are all equivalent to one another. Ruy Lopez 01:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is the beauty of it, you don't have to rely on one arbiter, or even know whether it is optimal overall, in a market, individuals just need to perform their local optimizations according to their local goals, local information and the market information given by market prices. Perhaps there is some global optimum that is not achieved through such local optimization techniques, but at least whatever optimum that is achieved reflects the individuals values as expressed by their real willingness to exchange resources for them and not some enforced agreement or theorectical consensus where the individual did little more than express a preference in a poll.--Silverback 01:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about markets? What is the difference between the central committee of the CPSU setting grain production quotas and the management of ADM setting grain production quotas, the grain being made into a bread which goes to the market which is exchanged for dollars or rubles and then consumed? The only difference is in the method of production control - in capitalism, corporate bureaucrats make almost all production decisions, in USSR socialism, CPSU bureaucrats made almost all production decisions.

The USSR had markets too, where do you think workers went to buy bread, shirts and such things? The local market.

Interesting point. Workers didn't simply distribute bread to one another, they went to the market to buy it with rubles. Any justification for that practice is also a justification for the opening of stock and bond exchanges, too. --Christofurio 20:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as market information given by market prices, there is only a binary piece of information, which I wouldn't even call price, but whether a commodity was exchangable with a commodity of equal value.

Again, you seem to see some significance in what you do or don't want to "call" things. If you offer me a euro for this doohicky, and I agree, then we have established an exchange price for the doohicky. That is, as you say, a "binary piece of information." It is also a price. Prices = information. Why do you need to stir up so much confusion about that simple point? There might be a lot of reasons why we agreed on one euro. Some of them involve supply and some involve demand. Both sets of reasons involve other prices, and alternatives each of us had in other markets. The price of the doohicky is part of that broader system. This is not a theory, it is a simply fact.

Anyhow, as I said before, these are two different theories. At a certain point one reaches diminishing returns discussing this, we're both simply restating over and over the differences between the LTV and STV theories. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Diamonds are a switch of subject in the way that you invoked them, because you're simply changing the subject to LTV, which is another way of saying, "communists think differently from their critics." Yes -- in general anyone who believes in X thinks differently from the critics of X. So? In an article about Xism, one ought to include a fair statement of the difference, and not keep interrupting that statement with distractions such as ... "but of course, Xists disagree with these disagreements with X"! --Christofurio 14:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I found the switch to diamonds in the article particularly troubling, because they are not as scarce as believed, and take relatively little labor to produce (about $2 per carat) and have been artificially made scarce by a cartel. I'd like to find a different example of a utilitarian good that takes little labor to produce, but that consumes a scarce resource or material that has competing alternate uses, in order to illustrate how a labor theory of value price would lead to uneconomic decision making by consumers because the scarcity is not reflected in the price nor is the opportunity cost of alternate uses of the scarce material.--Silverback 17:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What "switch"? I have given an example of a scarce resource, (finely) cut large diamonds. What was the previous example this was switched from? What was the scarce resource example you are saying this was switched from because I don't see it. Finely cut diamonds with many carats are not $2 per carat, if you can buy at those prices please tell me because I'll be glaf to pay you double or triple. I am talking about the entire labor process, not just the guy who drives the truck to the jewelery store. I think diamonds are a good example but I'll entertain other ones (gold?) It's not for me to think up your examples for you. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism requires Atheism?

Isn't that true? I thought atheism was a common denominator. All this talk about early christian / amish / shaker communism-like activities makes my head spin. What's the deal? I thought religion was the opiate of the masses and we were to find our solace in praying to Marx or some such ;) Maybe Juche?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why should communism require atheism? Sure, the various Marxist strains have been pretty anti-clerical, but common ownership of the means of production is clearly a much older idea. Grant65 (Talk) 12:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK then, you are suggesting Communism can be divorced of Marx entirely? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism and communist experiments existed before Marx and, in fact, before Marx most experiments with communism were of a religious nature, particularly among Christians. AndyL 12:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well thats a bit of a hat flipper, since I favor communal sharing in a religious setting, and to some extent among other NGO's. But that doesn't make me a commie, does it? :S

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One might take you more seriously if you didnt' use words like "commie". I doubt anyone would take an editor of the Christinaity article very seriously if he or she kept referring to Christians as "Jesus freaks". Anyway, there's quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was a communist while there's absolutely no evidence that he was a capitalist;) See the stub Religious communism as well as Christian socialism and social gospel .AndyL 21:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus probably did participate in markets as a carpenter, and his objection to money changers had more to do with inappropriate location (the temple). Perhaps, he can serve as a good example of tolerance to other communists, since he eschewed a state christianity, not seeking to overthrow the Roman empire (render unto Caesar...) but advocating a more bottom up, personal morality approach. --Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All successful communist societies have had a religious basis. They have been of moderate size, from a few hundred to a few thousand members. Their religious basis has varied from radical interpretations of Christianity such as Oneida Community to quite fundamentalist and conservative such as the Shakers of Ann Lee, many were based on German pietism. These communities were very prosperous and were the envy of their less-favored neighbors [9]. Secular efforts to imitate them such as New Harmony were unsuccessful. Fred Bauder 14:17, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

why just start at a few hundred, the church itself has been described as a family of family and perhaps communism starts even smaller, "whenever three or more are gathered in his name". Variants of the altruism meme have some persuasive power, perhaps because of the altruism "gene". I still think they break down and become virulent with size, large churches become cults, adopt rigid virulence, or split. Perhaps communism requires community and community has its size limits.--Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Anthropologists postulate all societies were communist prior to about 4000 B.C.E. One thing which is self-apparent is that a society with no surplus must be communist. In other words, if I have to spend all day working just to feed myself, with nothing left over in surplus (or "profit"), I obviously live in a communist society. There is nothing left over to supply a slave-master, feudal lord or capitalist. Ruy Lopez 00:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, the first signs of surplus predate 4000 B.C.E., there is evidence of art, ornament, ritual, hierarchy and status, tools refined beyond mere satisficing in the archeological evidence of pre-history. Some of these signs of surplus have been proposed as defining of modern humans and are assumed exist, even before the better preserved technologies developed.--Silverback 00:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say 4000 BCE, I said about 4000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, societies shifted to agriculture from being more-or-less hunter-gatherers. This created a steady surplus, which allowed for the possibility of the existence of a class that did not need to do work. Ruy Lopez 12:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course communism doesn't require atheism. Intrigue 00:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruy didn't like my earlier changes to the "Other forms of communism" section, likely because it was POV. I have now corrected my wording and feel it is now NPOV. Wikipedia says that we should be writing NPOV material, that is, we should try to show different sides of an issue, not cover up opposing views. So Ruy, although you are a communist, you have to play by Wikipedia rules. You cannot cover up a belief held by many Christians that opposes the "Jesus was a communist" theory. Besides, you are not religious, how could you even try to say that this belief is unsound, illogical, or untrue? You may disagree with this position but you cannot (according to Wikipedia rules) revert my edits whenever you get a chance. Correct them if they seem too POV for you, but don't cover them up by reverting them every time. How about some dialogue before you revert them next time, huh? Think NPOV Ruy.Gaytan 22:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All Communist states (perhaps there are a few exceptions) have been atheist, yes. Recall Marx describing religion as a pointless distraction from "revolution." J. Parker Stone 01:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Communism is secular, not athiest, isn't it? That means it doesn't require religion, but its not actually opposed to it. -- Natalinasmpf 22:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Early communism may not have required atheism but modern theories, and certainly Marxism, do. While everyone knows Marx's "Reiligion is the opiate of the masses" quote (I'd love to hear what he'd think of TV today), the real opposition to religion comes from its class nature. All communists strive to create a classless society and the clergy have traditionally maintained their own customs, dress codes, ideals and organisations. They are arguably the most distinct of all classes GreatGodOm 29 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Ruy states: "As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that?"

The barometer is exchanges at prices that reflect supply and demand. If a person chooses to exchange x which he has for y in the market place, it is assumed in economics that he considers himself better off. The assumption may not be valid if the person is stupid or lacks information about the goods being exchanged and needs big brother to make the decisons for him to achieve happiness. But the core of economics gives the individual a little credit for having better information about his own preferences and what would satify him than others making the decison for him would. This is the reason both sides in an exchange usually say "thank you", otherwise they would be making the exchange, since if the goods were of equal value to each they would not make the exhange since the transaction cost would make them better off with their status quo. Furthermore, if a person has a medium of exchange like money and the market has many goods which he could exchange it for, his purchase of x instead of y or z, displays his preference and satisfies him more than making the other choices or no exchange at all. Perhaps you don't accept this economic assumption, it depends on whether you give individuals a little credit for being able to autonomously make their own decisions.

In a communist mass society, where prices are set by the labor theory of value, people will respond the same way to price signals, if those signals don't also reflect the rarity of materials or the demand of them for higher uses for example, the fact that silver's value should reflect its usefulness in electronics and photography, what is to prevent it from all being used up for silverware. When prices do reflect demand, silver will go to where it will produce the most economic value, because uses that produce more value will be able to bid more for it. Note that a market system, also values less utilitarian things, such as silverware, but those who value it, had to value it more than others, since they had to value it enough to bid it away from other uses. Perhaps a person is stupid for valuing a silver spoon more than a radio, or film, but that is the subjective nature of value. Markets and prices tend to allocate things to achieve greater overall satisfaction and efficiency, at least where, information costs, transaction costs and externalities are low.--Silverback 00:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

??? I don't know where to start with this! As a piece of 'market-advocacy' it is an interesting perspective, but it is not an NPOV treatment of the subject. Intrigue 15:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you might start by reading some micro-economics and price theory. Perhaps market economics is a POV subject, but even so, its theory of price, efficiency, and even problems have been fleshed out and practiced, much more than whatever the communist equivilent would be in a mass society that had a minimal or limited state. Until that is worked, perhaps communes had best interact with the world as basic survival units (BSUs) within existing free market societies. The can price their goods as they wish, and participate in markets exchanging with other BSUs such as individuals, families, state sanctioned limited liability corporations (they can't exist without state sanction, so should be thought of as part of the state), etc. Of course, when participating in the markets, they might find the prices quite different, but arbitragers will step in to reduce any inbalances.--Silverback 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view, but it's far from fact. Intrigue 03:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting response, I mentioned a theory from an established field and then I mention a proposal for how communes might co-exist and operate within a market economy and you respond with "it's far from fact". Frankly, you aren't passing the Turing Test.--Silverback 04:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because I am a PHP script. It's fine to quote this as a theory, and reference who thinks it, it is just that presenting it as uncontested fact is not ok. Beep beep. Intrigue 20:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a robustly confirmed theory, I suppose you think the theories of evolution and relativity should have to be presented the same way. It would be a herculean task to present all the supporters of these theories, and the list of contesters, would either be some crackpots, or some bleeding edge tweakers who really accept the theory as 90 % right.--Silverback 00:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, we do reference who proposes these theories, and they are a lot easier to agree on than theories about 'levels of individual satisfaction'. I certainly don't think that this theory has 90% acceptance among any reasonable group of people. I'm disturbed by your reluctance to reference it if it really is that mainstream, I'm certainly not asking for every proponent, just one or two notable ones. Intrigue 02:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are not many universities without microeconomics and price theory courses.--Silverback 02:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have no problems attributing this theory to some published authors. Intrigue 19:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I wouldn't. I would just pick a broadly distributed comprehensive text, such as Exchange and Production: Theory in Use by Alchian & Allen., that way I wouldn't have to make a Darwin or Dawkin's type of choice. --Silverback 12:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement - the theory will be referenced in the article as one advanced by these people (among others)? Intrigue 18:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, there is a lot of unreferenced material in the article. The culture on the this page seems to be to achieve balance in unreferenced material. In this type of culture, if certain info, is seriously challenged, as patently false or illogical or nonsensisical then there might be a specific request or challenge to document it. We give each other space here, people present their arguments and the reader has the burden of weighing whether they make sense or not. For instance, in the human nature section, there is a poor example of "altruistic" human behavior, the mother caring for the child, which is universal mammalian behavior and which evolutionary theory never had any problem explaining. Certain risky behaviors in situations where the genetic relationship was more distant or less certain is where the research was grappling with. And the idea the capitalism suppresses altruism and communism might release these bonds is speculation bordering on nonsense. However, I credit the reader with being able to detect what might have rigor behind it and what does not. Now if you want to go through the article with a fine tooth comb, and find things you can challenge with credible and on-point references you will be a formidible contributer and closer to passing the turing test. However, such rigor might disturb the communitarian peacefulness of the communism page. 8-) --Silverback 19:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unreferenced or not, I think everyone understands the idea of an open market. However, the unproven part is whether market price-setting actually does result in higher levels of individual satisfaction. Why would it not? Simply because market forces rely on relatively short-term vision and are not coherent. Large-scale long-term projects beneficial to all are rarely initiated by market entities. Nor does the general direction of the market necessarily provide greater individual satisfaction. One might consider that if the resources invested in the perfume market (for instance) were instead allocated to general healthcare and/or dietary balance, satisfaction may very well be increased even for those individuals who would ordinarily have purchased perfume.--Csmcsm 01:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It results in higher satisfaction than the consumer started off with, since the exchanges are voluntary. This is not being compared to what some omniscient planner would do assuming he knew what was really best, it is being compared to the same consumer exchanges where instead the prices are set on the labor theory of value, prices that don't reflect the scarcity of resources or the demand for higher uses. Under the labor theory of value, the price would be the same for steel spoons as for silver spoons if their manufacturing and supply processes required the same amount of labor. Scarce resource like silver or energy, and alternate demand from higher uses such as silver in electronics or photographic plates (perhaps for X-rays) is not reflected in the price and thus not in the consumer decision. The assumption is that the consumer would make better decisions with better information, admittedly this gives the consumer credit for a little intelligence and personal knowledge of his/her own values. You view perfume as a short term decision that ignores the long term posibilities, but it may the proper longer term choice in the consumer's value system, if for instance it enables the procurement of a more fertile mate with higher quality genes (someone really, really good looking?). You talk as if noone should ever accept risks for short term pleasure, as if, in a communist society, there would be no mountain climbing, sky diving, promiscuous sexuality, jaywalking, etc. because these don't achieve some ominiscient level of satisfaction or contribute to better health care.--Silverback 05:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not answering my points (as usual). Under a market system, resources are dictated mostly by selfish individuals with short-term goals. I've accepted that a communist nation is likely to set the wrong prices with regard to individual demand. But you're not considering the downside of the free-market system: which is that commodities that are inefficient at raising individual satisfaction in general can force the price of efficient commodities to increase. To follow your example, individual demand for decorative silverware will force the cost of X-Ray plates up in a free market, despite the fact that decorative silverware is grossly inefficient in comparison at raising individual satisfaction. Why is it that capitalist nations rely on communist structures to deliver basic public goods? --Csmcsm 20:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said, this is a theory, and should not be presented as fact, but as a theory advanced by some (perhaps many) people. I'm baffled as to why you would not want to reference this as the opinion of some notable politcal theorists. We don't need to argue about whether it is right or wrong, just say who claims it. Intrigue 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics, economics, and psychology

While what is referred to here on the wiki as communism isn't what I think of when I hear the word (I think of State Communism, i.e. pol pot & stalin), it does seem to be an important concept. This "communalism" is actually very agreeable to me as a spiritual person, I believe strongly in altruism. Unfortunately, these altruistic sociological theories only seem to work as far as the commune, and even then only when there is a solid religious foundation, and often a charismatic leader as well. Frankly, I think the people who desire to attempt Anarcho-Communism on a grand scale, or without a focus on God, have little comprehension of economics, psychology, sociology, or... history. They forget that the shiny idealism they believe so strongly in was once shared by those radicals who led to Stalin, Pol Pot, and every form of state communism. They forget that not everyone is altruistic, and indeed, that many are violent conquerors, or simply minor parasites, looking to revel in excess at the disadvantage of others. Every time I hear someone like Noam Chomsky speak, my mind wanders to visions of Black shirts beating political opponents and forcing them to drink castor oil, Snowball being chased from the farm by dogs, and Trotsky getting stabbed with an ice pick. No matter how pretty the utopia you envision, reality will always eventually step in. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? Read some more and you can dispel your own myths and misconceptions, if you wanna stop scaring yourself over something that isn't real.--Che y Marijuana 22:02, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Communist/Socialist, is that sure?

Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether European socialdemocracy, wich can be considered socialism even if of a moderate kind, does not involves public ownership of the means of production. And I don't think that there has been even one communist regime that has completely abolited private ownership, nor Karl Marx ever proposed to do that. Before the october revolution I think that the world communist was just a synonim of revolutionary socialist. After that it was used to refer to those socialists that had embrassed Lenin's ideas and that looked at the October Revolution as their political source of inspiration. juliet.p from Italy

Blaming the Resistance for a Revolution's Violence

This is almost a cartoonishly bad argument. Summarizing and paraphrasing just a bit, we're now saying, "some of communism's critics complainthat revolutions are bloody. To this communists reply: if the establishment didn't resist the revolution, it could all be done quickly and peacefully."

Yes, and if Haile Selassie had gone along, Mussolini's takeover of his country would have been bloodless, too. Does anybody defend the general principle that resistance as such is evil because it forces aggressors to get violent?

I agree that this passage should be deleted or rewritten at least. TDC 16:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Deng quote

I don't understand how the Deng quote needs contextualising, or how it is POV. We are reporting the judgement of many that China has made significantly pro-capitalist economic reforms; the quote is a support of this view. Don't interpret this as a challenge; I'm just genuinely confused, and don't understand the need for reversion. In the interests of accuracy, isn't the best approach to attempt to provide necessary contextualisation? Lacrimosus 07:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the quotation was, "Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious." Yet, the way it was inserted into the article seems to imply that Deng was dismissing communism and admitting the superiority of capitalism. Also, is his conception of what it means to be "rich" any different in China from the prevailing one in the West? One quotation, at any rate one that can be interpreted in multiple ways, does not illustrate a complicated phenomena that accompany China's development... This quotation adds nothing to the article other than confusion. (There are already links concerning Chinese economic reform that are sufficient.) Please remove it. 172 08:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he said it, at the time he was allowing market reforms, would indicate that he thought central planning, if not communism itself, was inhibiting wealth creation. The quote does not seem confuse any issues. If it seems a mixed message, perhaps that accurately reflects the state of affairs in the real world as well.--Silverback 02:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True, it is a complicated phenomenon, and it would be great if someone could sufficiently articulate its causes. I disagree with the reading that it involves Deng conceding to capitalism's superiority; I interpret it it as a change of views - it wouldn't be any more true to say that Mussolini by changing his opinions conceded to the superiority of fascism. Nevertheless, I will take out the quote, it'd still be nice if knowledgeable persons/people could talk more about the development of Maoist economics in China. Lacrimosus 23:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please no revert war, I've even included a Washington Times source for you. It's a perfectly apt and reasonable quote. 172, please leave your agenda behind. Libertas

Hammer & Sickle

The article itself seems to have become much better of late in respect of not identifying communism exclusively with Leninism and the former USSR, though there is some way to go in this respect. The use of the hammer and sickle logo and its description as 'the international symbol of communism' is an example. It wouldn't be regarded as such by left communists, council communists, most Trotskyites, Anarcho-communists and other advocates of a communist society (granted it would often depend on how far you were from 1917 when you asked them). The appearance of the hammer and sickle at the top of the banner advertising the communism series of articles is likewise inappropriate, given that that series contains many articles on schools of thought that were extremely critical of, if not hostile to, the USSR. Shall we consign it to the dustbin of history? Mattley 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What about red and or gold stars?\ Dudtz 7/30/05 3:52 PM EST

Explanations for the removal of Ultramarine's text

• Opponents of communism point out that the number of people killed are more than one hundred million. And that the methods used included concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides. [[10][11]
  • This is addresssed already in a way that avoids violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View with the following "...presiding over periods of repressive rule that saw tens of millions of casualties (see also Communist state)." In addition, you links have been added to the text. Further detail is found in the articles on the histories of the various Communist regimes and Communist state.
• And that they [concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides] took place in almost every communistic state.
  • This is a description of the Stalinist USSR, which saw a scale of violence and terror unseen in Communist regimes that came to power after the Second World War, such as Cuba.
• And in the Soviet Union continued even when that state was a superpower."[12]
  • The terror was abated significantly following Stalin's death, with Khrushchev's de-Stalinization. To make it clear that the USSR and other Communist governments were still nevertheless repressive single party regimes, but in a way that does not over-simplify history and violate NPOV, I added: "In the second half of the twentieth century, movements that threatened Communist Parties' monopoly on power, such Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring and China's Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, continued to be suppressed. Given these incidents and their often-violent histories, Communist Party-led regimes are often associated with human rights abuses, especially in the West."
• They also point out that every communistic state to date have been a dictatorship.
  • The text states, "Because they were governed by monopolistic parties..." Those who argue that every Communist regime has been a dictatorship base that on the fact that a single party has a monopoly on power, so this point is already addressed while following NPOV.
• Some supporters of communism claim that these states were in fact not communistic. Opponents claim that using the same argument, it is not possible to criticize capitalistic societies, as it can be claimed that apparently capitalistic states are in fact not capitalistic.
  • This is neither here nor there. They were Communist Party run states, and to dispute this would be more of a stretch than arguing that the world is flat. They were not "communistic" though (with a small "c"). Communism is a social system based on common ownership of all property, an ideal that Communist Party run regimes claim that they are attempting to realize, but one that never has been realized; and this cannot be disputed given every single definition of "communism" (small "c") available.

In all, note many of the recent additions under the "violence" section (formerly "revolutionary violence"-- broadened to include the entire span of their rule) that incorporate the topics that Ultramarine is attempting to bring to light. 172 00:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely people acknowledge that historically Communist states have held communist characteristics, even if they have not fulfilled Marx's dream of "true" communism (which, given the circumstances necessary, is utterly impossible) J. Parker Stone 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stick with standard definitions. Communism is based on common ownership of all property. Socialism is based on state ownership of the means of production. 172 03:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao. And that the deaths occured in almost all Communist states. However, the text is a marked ímprovement. Earler there were NO mention of the millions of killed, neither in this article or in that about Communist states. I will restore the last argument. The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property.Ultramarine 08:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property. This is covered elsewhere in the article. Keep in mind that there are also articles on Communist state, Marxism, and socialism. The Communism article is the on the ideology of Communism (large "C") and communism (small "c") as a social system; and it already veers way too off topic with discussions of socialism and the political history of various Communist regimes. Re: millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao Not in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev. Not in China under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao. Perhaps you are referring to Pol Pot's rule. 172 09:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read more history. Soviet Union [13] China[14] You seem to think that facts that contradict your view of the world are POV. But they are just facts, not opinions. Calling deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation for casualties is POV. I will change the statements so that the fact are clear. Do not censor them, even if you do not like the facts. Ultramarine 14:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not attribute this to POV. The reverts are more the result of problems posed by your non-native English, which is leaving this section a jumbled mess. The article goes into a sufficient level of detail mentioning tens of millions of casualties. The political histories of the relevant Communist regimes can be found in articles on the History of the Soviet Union and the History of the People's Republic of China. And, yes, it is POV to deny that the terror was abated significantly in the Soviet Union and China after the deaths of Stalin and Mao, respectively. 172 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then change the English. Do not censor the facts. You again insist that deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation are casualties? You have already demonstrated your lack of historic knowledge by claiming that millions did not continue to be killed after Stalin and Mao. Keep the facts so you and others can learn. Ultramarine 04:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a historian, so you can show me all the libertarian polemics and websites that you possibly can will not have shown me anything new to me. Writing NPOV is not just a matter of inserting "opponents say," "supporters say" anywhere you can possibly fit it but rather writing specifically and precisely. Internal exile and concentration camps in Siberia long predate the Soviet Union, as do mass starvations, so they are not unique to Communist rule. Thus, I will integrate your observations of famine and starvation into the article in way that maintains proper historical writing, specifically mentioning the Gulags and the famine coinciding with collectivization. 172 06:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very afraid to let others know that killing continued until the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, under Lenin, after Mao and in all Communist countries. Add that killings also took place in Russia before the revolution, but do not remove that they continued as long as the communists were in power. Why was there NO mention of the Gulags in the articles prior to this discussion, if you had knowledge of them? Ultramarine 07:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the finger-pointing. (Libertas?) I wrote only very small portions of the article; and this is not the article on the history of the soviet Union. 172 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made your point again in a clear, specific way. I added that the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, continued to be single party regimes that executed political opponents of the regime, though on a far smaller scale. 172 07:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Much better now. I disagree to "casualties". Which is " a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action". And if these states were not communist, then one can similarly claim that apparently capitalist states are not capitalist. Ultramarine 07:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I smell a Trot!

This article is filled with Trotskyist slants. Stalin suppressed ALL dissent? Find me a quote from Stalin where he actually says it is neccesary to "suppress all dissent". He may very well have done that, but that isn't part of Stalinism. In fact, there is no Stalinism. Stalinism is term invented by Trots for Marxism-Leninism. Trotskyism is a deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

• Just out of interest - are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party? Average Earthman 17:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"He may very well have done that, but that isn't part of Stalinism" Then, if Stalin did it, what is it part of? BTW, Trotsky said there was no such thing as "Trotskyism" and that the term was invented by Stalinists. Trotsky preferred the term "Bolshevik-Leninism". AndyL 17:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you smell the truth. Bah, what does that matter if it were all or some? The fact that Stalin did it, is still there. And, further up, there is no Stalinism and there is no Trotskyism. It's just invidual interpretions of how Communism should be, made of them...although I prefer the latter. However; The article is neutral and is just telling history how it happened as neutrally as possible. Although I agree and changed it from "all" to "most".--OleMurder 06:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that Trotsky would want the term "Bolshevik-Leninism" when he spent most of his life attacking the Bolsheviks and Lenin, and only joined the Bolsheviks in July of 1917 (three months before the revolution) and still spent most of his time attacking Lenin. The solution, IMO, is to not use the term "Stalinism" when writing articles about those who upheld Stalin, or to reference it in such way as to clarify the meaning. Same should be done for Trotskyites if they feel that the term "Troskyism" is incorrect. BTW, Stalin hardly crushed all dissedents. IMO, he was a little too friendly and a good purging before his death might have prevented revisonism and the eventual collapse of the USSR, and we would have a lot more hope for the future today. --Mista-X 16:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"there is no better Bolshevik" Lenin on Trotsky.

economic critique

Not going to go into too much detail here, since it has been well covered elsewhere, notably by Karl Marx... Here is the addition made by Luis

• According to critics, communists forget, however, that the production process requires more than just labour: machines (i.e. "capital"). These machines have a cost, which has to be included in the price of the produced good. Indeed, a T-shirt can nowadays be either produced with lots of labour (for instance in China) or with many machines (in Europe). Modern economic theory would imply that both T-shirts should have the same price (since they are essentially the same), no matter how much labour went into them.

Communists don't forget that capital makes up part of the cost of production of a commodity, though they do see capital as 'dead' or 'congealed' labour. There is no conflict between Marx and "Modern economic theory" on the point you claim. Yes, these T-shirts exchange at the same price despite having required different amounts of labour for their production because, in Marxian terms, their value is determined by the average amount of labour required for their production. There are plenty of valid criticisms that could be made of Marx, but this one is just based on a misapprehension I'm afraid. See Wages, Price and Profit or Wage Labour and Capital for more if you like. They explain the Labour theory of value very cogently and address the assumptions you are making. Mattley 19:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does the theory explain how the congealed labor in the capital equipment just happens to come out equal to the labor in the labor intensive process? That coincidence sounds too unlikely to be true. There wouldn't be much point to the machines if they didn't save net labor in the long run.--Silverback 10:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you're driving at in that first sentence there. It isn't a question of amounts of labour being equal - because it is not the amount of labour in a particular commodity but the average amount required. In general, that is the point of introducing machinery: it means that a capitalist is temporarily able to produce commodities more cheaply than competitors yet realise a greater profit because he would be producing below the socially necessary cost of production for said commodities. This competitive advantage, in a real-world situation, would be of very short-duration, since competitors would also increase their capital-intensity. Is this not covered at Labour theory of value or somewhere? As for centrally planned states etc, I don't know. They weren't 'socialist', and if they claimed to be putting 'Marxian economics' into practices they were even more fraudulent than I realised. Mattley 12:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got your point. I won't put it back. However, what about the bureaucracy part? That critique seems rather relevant to me - after all it does not only apply to centrally planned states, but to any organization that has become too big. Luis rib 22:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gift economy and anarchism

There's no mention of the concept of a gift economy in this article, which I find quite surprising, because the concepts are almost the same. I mean, they could be used to clear up a lot of things which would normally take a lot of things to say, or if the concept wasn't even mentioned, then oh the horror!

Also, I find the fact that this article seems to distinguish too much between anarchism and communism. Can we consider anarchism part of, a branch of communism, whereas Marxist-Leninism is the other main branch? -- Natalinasmpf 22:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried my best to rework the article, it needs ALOT of work. But at least now it mentions gift economies a few times.--Che y Marijuana 03:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the other concern is its elaboration of the idea of the gift economy's part in the movement in both the critique, and the response against it, and especially in the Stalinism vs Trotskyism area. -- Natalinasmpf 20:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyscraper example

Sorry if I seem annoying, but I find the skyscraper example rather bad. Maybe in the US skyscrapers are built entirely with private capital, but in other countries that does not seem to be the case. In the Gulf states skyscrapers are mostly built by state-owned companies. In Europe also the states have a lot of influence on skyscraper-building because of zoning laws, etc. Could the same point be made with another example? Luis rib 17:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggested links

The links which Ultramarine wants to insert are problematic for a number of reasons. Leaving aside the reliability of the sites in question for the time being, the intro to this article states that it is primarily about the theory of communism. It also states that For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state. This seems more than reasonable as a way of organising discussion of such an enormous topic. And since these links all discuss the abuses of Communist-Party regimes, they don't belong here. If we have all that stuff on the crimes of Communist regimes, then what is to stop someone adding links applauding Stalin's success in raising industrial production in the USSR etc. etc etc. It is off-topic. Why should they be here? Mattley 23:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An article about Nazism should have a short section about the human rights crimes. There can be a longer article also about these but they should not be censored in the main article. Furthermore, the real world failure of all attempts to implement Marx's ideas is extremely important for the theory of Communism in general. See my change of the Critique section Ultramarine 00:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Nazism article discusses only the theory, much like this one, with short links to pages with more detail. That's the way it should be. As for the "scholarly works" you're linking to, some in gif format, they are discredited and worthless. At least the cato institute article criticizing communism I added isn't hosted at geocities.--Che y Marijuana 02:18, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Nazism article has an section about Effects with ha short description. Please show evidence that the links are discredited. Many are written by respected academics and published in academic press. Cite your sources! Ultramarine 02:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MIM responds to Black Book of Communism editor Mark Kramer. The editor himself admits accidentally using a percentage sign instead of per thousand sign, multiplying by 10 the numbers in one section. It's not exactly the most trustworthy source.--Che y Marijuana 03:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

As for the Nazism article, there is a small paragraph on it, but it makes no sense to drag it all into here. If we can't do it justice on this page, as it is a big page, it should be placed almost entirely on the other page.--Che y Marijuana 03:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

An error do not certainly discredit an entire book. And that is just one of many books. I will add a partial reference list. Ultramarine 03:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from 1.6, to 16 percent of the chinese population, that's a huge difference. And my point is the whole book is disputed, there's far more in it that has been discredited, I'll track it down for you. As for the other links, none of them are even worth addressing, anyone who takes one look at them would understand. You list a site hosted on Angelfire! Scholarly my ass. Don't reinsert these, let's discuss a list of useful links here. I tried to find some, all I could come up with was the cato thing, but the black book and these other links are CRAP.--Che y Marijuana 03:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cite your sources. What is wrong with other books? Most of them are published by academic press, many by respected researchers. Again, if you have something against this academic reserach, cite your sources. I will skip the link for now and only add back the academic research. Ultramarine 03:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concenrning The Black Book of Communism, the questions about its validity are addressed on its own page. The book is considered to be relevant by many people (incl., for instance, the French right-wing philosopher J-F Revel, in case you want an example). Also, it is quite well-known among the general public as being a book against communism. I don't see a problem in mentioning in here; any criticism of it should move to its own page. Luis rib 09:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the references. We already have a section which introduces the topic of human rights abuses by Communist states and refers the reader to the article on Communist states. Given that this article itself is supposed to be primarily about communism as a theory and future society, that seems more than fair to me. The introduction of these links and/or websites would

1) create an imbalanced article including too much material which is not wihin its scope.

2) endorse several definite points of view, namely that alleged communist states were indeed communist, that the abuses they committed stemmed directly from communist theory, and that any future attempt to bring about a communism society would inevitably lead to a repeat of such abuses.

We don't want a whole bunch of POV now, do we? Mattley 13:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV

My last edit removed some blantant POV from the section on "Communist states." 'Executions, labor camps with high mortality, and mass starvations' have taken place in capitalist societies, but what would happen if one were to put the following in the article on capitalism:

Numerous human rights violations have been attributed to capitalist regimes. These include: executions, labor camps with high mortality, mass starvations caused deliberately and by mismanagement, and ethnic genocides. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is highly disputed; depending on the cited historical sources and on the answer to the question "what kinds of deaths can be attributed to the socio-economic system of capitalist or to the government supporting the capitalist system?", the death toll is perhaps as high as the hundreds of millions. Other widespread accusations concern the lack of freedom of speech in capitalist countries, religious and ethnic persecutions, destruction of historical and cultural heritages, environmental disasters, lack of democracy, restriction of emigration, personality cults, and inherited dictatorship, particularly under those of the fascist variety.

I hope that no one will attempt to put the above in the article on capitalism. That would be absurd-- just as absurd as allowing the content that I'd removed from the article to stay up... If people are interested in detailing a critique of Communist ideology based on the actions of Communist regimes, they will have to cite the research of authortative sources laying out a relationship between Communist ideology and the actions of political authorities in cases such as Stalinist Russia, Communist China, et. al. JMaxwell 21:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the following passage, I removed the bit in italics

Finally, some claim that wars, hunger and lack of elementary medical care, causing the deaths of millions, are the results of capitalist relations of production, making capitalism the single most violent socio-economic system in history. This view, however, is widely criticised, since most wars, famines or epidemics happened in countries that were not really capitalist.

Don't think anyone could really argue that war has not been a characteristic of world capitalism: think world wars one and two for a start, then add Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. As for famine and epidemics, note that this is not what the earlier section refers to. It talks about hunger and lack of elementary medical care, both widespread and devastating in the developing world despite the ability of the world to produce more than enough to supply food and medical care. Lest we are tempted to argue that such countries are not capitalist remember that this too is not exactly what the earlier section alleges. The claim is more precisely that they are the results of capitalist relations of production, ie, the fact that production is carried on for profit rather than to meet human needs. Mattley 23:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Korea was a capitalist war??? North Korea invaded the South! Algeria? Was a colonial war. Afghanistan? I remember some soviet invasion at some point... WWI and WWII? Please! Do not confuse imperialism (WWI) and Nazism (WWII) with capitalism! Your claim that capitalism is associated with war is a complete fallacy. Which wars were started by Sweden? By the Netherlands? By Canada?

As for the rest of your comment: the wide-spread poverty of the developing world, whose consequence is hunger and lack of medical care (among many other problems), is certainly not due to capitalism in America and Europe. How come Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and now China, managed to overcome poverty, hunger and other problems? Only because they embraced capitalism. What you do not understand is that capitalism can only produce profits because it meets human needs (i.e. because people buy what they think they need). The problem in Africa, for instance, is that international trade is often very reduced because of high import duties (preventing people from buying cereals and food in case there is a drought, for instance). Luis rib 23:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place in other talk pages, and there's no need to repeat it here. People looking for information on communism SHOULD find some reference to what happened in countries that officially claimed to be communist. The facts are not in dispute, in any case (there's just some argument on the precise number of deaths, etc.). Your comparison with capitalism is spurious, since capitalism is not as wide-spread as you claim. Certainly not all non-communist states are capitalist. Indeed, most African countries were not capitalist, and neither was Latin America (with the possible exception of Chile). Luis rib 23:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that capitalism is associated with war is a complete fallacy. I am not making this claim. My point is that all 'executions, labor camps with high mortality, and mass starvations' occurred throughout history in societies where private ownership of the means of production dominated economic output. However, whether or not there was a relationship to capitalism and these occurrences is not for Wikipedia to decide, due to the NPOV policy; instead, this is a matter to be taken up in social science academic journals. In the same vein, Wikipedia cannot assert a relationship between every occurrence under Communist regimes and Communist ideology... If you want to cite authoritative source making this claim, feel free to do so. At the same time, this claim must be balanced with other POVs. JMaxwell 01:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible crimes in Capitalist states is not the issue here here. It is human rights violations in the states rules by Communist states. For extensive academic references, Communist states. Please stop this historical revisionism. Ultramarine 03:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding my point. I brought up capitalism as an example in order to demostrate the shortcomings of the approach taken in the writing of the pargraph I'm calling into question. It is POV (and original research) to attribute every occurrence in a Communist regime to Communism independent of other historical factors, just as it is POV and original research to attribute every occurrence in a society where private ownership of capital generates the bulk of economic output to capitalism... However, you may be able to incorporate these observations about history of Communist regimes if you (1) do a better job presenting contending POVs and contextualizing the history and (2) citing authoritative research not just recording these occurrences under Communism but also stating inferences about the relationship between these occurrences and Communism. JMaxwell 03:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have given my academic references. Give your own if you think they are wrong.

As stated in the rewritten text, if one cannot critcze Communism for real-world consequences, then one cannot critcze capitalist states for real-world consequences. So I could remove all statistcs about wealth inequality in Capitalist states and state that this has nothing to with the ideal Capitalist society and thus should not be in an article about capitalism. Ultramarine 03:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have cited some sources (all anticommunist polemics) claiming that certain things occurred under communist regimes, but the paragraph that I removed does not make it clear what these alleged occurrences had to do with Communism. Again, by your reasoning, someone should be able to add the following to the article on capitalism:

Numerous human rights violations have been attributed to capitalist regimes. These include: executions, labor camps with high mortality, mass starvations caused deliberately and by mismanagement, and ethnic genocides. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is highly disputed; depending on the cited historical sources and on the answer to the question "what kinds of deaths can be attributed to the socio-economic system of capitalist or to the government supporting the capitalist system?", the death toll is perhaps as high as the hundreds of millions. Other widespread accusations concern the lack of freedom of speech in capitalist countries, religious and ethnic persecutions, destruction of historical and cultural heritages, environmental disasters, lack of democracy, restriction of emigration, personality cults, and inherited dictatorship, particularly under those of the fascist variety.

JMaxwell 03:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not cite some sources. I cite extensive adademic research. If you want to criticze capitalism, find the academic references and add that to the capitalism article. Do not censor this article. Ultramarine 04:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(1) Mentioning Rummel and the Black Book of Communism? You'd get flunked out of any intro-level college course by calling that "extensive adademic research." If that's considered high standards of "extensive adademic research," we might as well let someone start loading the article on capitalism with crap from Noam Chomsky and calling that the final word on the subject. (I'm not saying that the views of those authors do not belong in this article, just that they cannot be the final word on the subject given the NPOV policy.) (2) In case you ignored my comments earlier, my point is not to criticize capitalism but rather use the comparision as a teaching devise of sorts to illustrate the inherent problems in the approach taken in the pargraph that I am removing by applying it to another topic. (3) Please stop making personal attacks. Accusing someone of trying to 'censor' the article or engaging in 'historical revisionism' go against the norms of civility in online community projects. Please see Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. JMaxwell 04:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I state many other sources besside Rummel and the Black book. If you want to criticze them, give academic references and not hearsay. If you cannot provide the academic references, you are censoring. Ultramarine 04:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a diversion. One does not have to make this into a debate forum in order to recognize that authors like Rummel are not the final word on the subject... You directed me earlier to the article on the Black Book of Communism, but that article contains references to research incorporating other factors for explaining the same observed phenomena; the paragraph that I'd removed from this article lacks this balance, and thus ought to be removed on grounds of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. JMaxwell 04:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Communist states:

References on human rights violations by Communist states

• Becker, Jasper (1998) Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine'.' Owl Books. ISBN: 0805056688.
• Conquest, Robert (1991) The Great Terror: A Reassessment Oxford University Press ISBN: 0195071328.
• Conquest, Robert (1987) The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195051807.
• Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0674076087.
• Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992 Indiana University Press. ISBN: 0253207568.
• Jackson, Karl D. (1992) Cambodia, 1975-1978 Princeton University Press ISBN: 069102541X.
• Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982 University of California Press. ISBN: 0520208935.
• Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series) Yale University Pres. ISBN: 0300092849.
• Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) The Great North Korean Famine. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN: 1929223331.
• Nghia M. Vo (2004) The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam McFarland & Company ISBN: 0786417145.
• Pipes, Richard (1995) Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. Vintage. ISBN: 0679761845.
• Rummel, R.J. (1997). Death by Government. Transaction Publishers. ISBN: 1560009276.
• Rummel, R.J. (1996). Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers ISBN: 1560008873.
• Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. Lit Verlag ISBN: 3825840107.
• Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN: 0271019611
• Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN: 0300103220. Ultramarine 04:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. We're all familiar with Rummel, Conquest, Pipes, and the bulk of these authors. Copying and pasting this list, however, is not a license to write a biased diatribe blaming everything occurring under Communist regimes on Communism independent of other factors, such as the social problems inherited from the old regimes... Incidentally, if a Marxist decided to apply your reasoning to the capitalism article, he could just as easily generate a list of Marxist academics who relate capitalism to the great power rivalries leading up to the First World War, the Second World War, and the rise of fascism, and then in turn proceed to blame all the horrors and atrocities of the interwar era on capitalism. JMaxwell 04:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please write this ñew section in the capitalism article and support it with academic references. It would start an interesting debate. But do not censor the academic research regarding Communist states. You have not given a single academic reference that finds an error in current text. Ultramarine 04:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point that I am making does not require the presentation of extensive research. It should be readily apparent to just about anyone who passed high school history. (World History is a requirement in just about every American high school.) All of those watching this article should be expected to have enough of a grounding in the past to be aware of the fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred in noncommunist regimes, and were indeed all too common in both China and Russia before their respective Communist takeovers. That's the only premise of my argument that I am responsible for establishing. With that in mind, your work should be more contextualized and balanced by other possible explanatory variables, like the fact that both China and Russia were engulfed by utter chaos and anarchy before the Communists even came to power. (One would have to be pretty obtuse to expect any group forcibly establishing a new regime to restore order without a considerable amount of bloodshed.) JMaxwell 05:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add your observations, with academic references. The facts are clear and should not be censored. They showed that horrendous human rights violations took place in most or all of the states ruled by Communist parties. If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. For now, you have only made many claims without a single reference as support. Please read cite your sources and no original research. Ultramarine 09:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then you can read about the fallacy of the hasty generalization. I thought that you would be intelligent enough to realize that the paragraph was nothing more than a huge sweeping generalization without having to name-drop, but since you would rather continue playing games instead of respecting the NPOV policy, I can join you in this pissing contest and start listing off academics myself. For starters, Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy relates the class structure of the old regimes the political development of Communist regimes. Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions relates class and state structures of the old regime to political development. I cite these two because their works are the basis of established literature on this subject in comparative politics; if you are interested in other writers in this field, you can go ahead and do a search on Jstor yourself. JMaxwell 09:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. I am not setting out to do either of these things. This is a staw man and yet another diversion on your part. The problem is that you are refusing to accept any other possible explanation of these occurrences except Communism, which makes little sense when you consider the basic fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred at times in noncommunist regimes, and, moreover, took place at times in both Russia and China before the Communists came along. This is an example of how tricky it is to argue that these poltical patterns are caused by an economic system or an ideology, and why these explantions are for the realm of scholarly journals, not Wikipedia. JMaxwell 09:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You understate the magnitude of the situation, the countries themselves were slave labor camps since they shot people trying to escape, there is film footage of it happening for badness sakes! Denial of the right emigrate is perhaps the most basic human rights violation (for those allowed to live), we could perhaps tolerate some diversity in country oppressiveness if people were living there were doing so voluntarily, but denial of the right to emigrate trumps any apologia these regimes might offer for the measures they use.--Silverback 10:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) Are you denying that these crimes took place? Then give academic references 2) Are you saying that similar crimes took place in Capitalist countries? Then give references and write something in the Capitalism article. 3) Are you saying that all the crimes took place during the revolution and that there were no Gulags, terror or mass starvations long after this? Then please give references. You seem to think that crimes can be excused if there has been similar crimes before which is an absurd idea. It is like justifying Hitler's genocides by stating that the German empire earlier committed genocides in Africa. Ultramarine 11:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you speak English? How many times do you have to make the same accusations and say the same things over and over again? Reread what I wrote. If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. I am not setting out to do either of these things. This is a staw man and yet another diversion on your part. The problem is that you are refusing to accept any other possible explanation of these occurrences except Communism, which makes little sense when you consider the basic fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred at times in noncommunist regimes, and, moreover, took place at times in both Russia and China before the Communists came along.... You want to claim that these things were caused only by Communism, independent of other factors, when in reality hisotry was more complex. JMaxwell 20:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring my questions and statements in more recent replies. I will go all the way to arbitration if there is any attempt at censorship of very well-documented historical facts. Ultramarine 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You keep on turn my statements into strawmen, attributing motives to me that I'm not working for. You asked for sources, and I gave them to you. There is indeed writing on China and Russia that does not attribute all the problems in those two countries to Communist boogymen... Go ahead and take this to arbitration. Your work is POV and you are acting unreasonable. I'm sure that will be evident to any less fanatical person. JMaxwell 21:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of your sources explain why the human rights violations by Communist states should be censored from the article. Add to the text that there is "writing on China and Russia that does not attribute all the problems in those two countries to Communist boogymen". This is no excuse for excluding the very well-documented historical research. Should the article about Nazism censor the human rights crimes because there are some books which have a different opinion? Ultramarine 21:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Damn you're being really dense. My point isn't to keep information out, just to balance it with more information, or get rid of it if the writers can manage to present it within the framework of NPOV. The problem is not necessarily what you are observing, but the lack of attention to other areas of academic literature when it comes to causation. JMaxwell 21:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then add the information, as I have repeatedly stated, with references. Ultramarine 21:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear JMaxwell. Since you ask in how far theoretical Communism is responsible for the crimes attributed to Communism, here's an explanation (documented in The Black Book, among many other sources). A) Certainly labour camps, famines, etc. existed before communism. B)In the case of labour camps, these persisted for the simple reason that the general population was opposed to the government and the policies it implemented (e.g. collectivization of land). C) Famines were directly linked to Communist policies. In China's case, the Black Book explains very well how the economic measures of the Great Leap Forward were the prîncipal reason of the famine (e.g. the prohibition to trade grain between provinces, the collectivization of land, the central planification, the reduced labour force following the forced move to industrial production, etc.). This is different from previous famines that took place before communism, and were due to indifference from the central powers. D) In the case of Cambodia, the genocide was directly the consequence of Pol Pot's interpretation of Communism (i.e. an agricultural communism, without money, industry, or services, and where individualism was suppressed to the point of prohibiting glasses), which he tried to preserve by assassinating or starving those that might have seen the flaws in his reasoning. E) You may argue that all these points are irrelevant since they don't reflect real (utopic) communism). This point can be countered by noticing that 1- utopic free market capitalism doesn't exist either; 2- until 1989, all communist parties, and most intellectuals that supported marxism, agreed that the Soviet Union and other countries were on the way of establishing communism; 3- from an economic point of view, many measures typically identified with communism were indeed implemented by Communist countries, with the consequences we know. Luis rib 21:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Save your breath. I have heard all of these explanations many times before. I am not saying that I necessarily disagree with them, but that the article should not be based on the above POV premises or other POV premises that recognize that every social and economic structure that has ever developed in China or Russia has had its inherent problems. JMaxwell 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have kept this on my watchlist, although I had taken a vacation from it for various reasons. The article seems somewhat improved; there is at least brief mention of the horrendous consequences of the Communist adventure. This introduction:

":This article is about communism as a form of society built around a gift economy, as an ideology advocating that form of society, and as a popular movement. For issues regarding the organization of the communist movement, see the Communist party article. For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state.

represents, however, an attempt to distance the article from the realities of practical communism as we have known it in our lifetime and especially from the realities of being involved in the movement.

One note: This article is not about capitalism and the problems capitalism has. That material needs to go in the article, capitalism. Yet, the communist movement cannot be considered apart from capitalism as much of its energy comes from the consequences of capitalist organization of the economy. Fred Bauder 14:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

No, but neither is the capitalist article going to be mainly about the problems it has. The communism article is good for criticising capitalism from the perspective of a communist economic system. And cannot considered apart? You're basically saying that the immune system really shouldn't be considered apart from viruses, bacteria and cancer cells because much of the "energy" and evolutionary drive to develop an immune system comes from the consequences of pathogen organisation in the body? -- Natalinasmpf 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Utopian Communism

Whether we have an article utopian communism or not, that is where this sort of stuff belongs: "...communism itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be related to the actions of 20th century states." Essentially this is propaganda and is, in fact, a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This line served its purpose for bait and switch, but there was no sign any actual Communist movement took it seriously. Our article can include such theories but the bulk of it needs to refer to ideologies which existed or events which occured. Fred Bauder 16:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dialogue

Sorry, this is not propaganda. This is the proposed ideology which drove other models forward, but the actual implementation became different. This is why there is a huge conflict between anarcho-communists and Marxists. Communism's original goal is utopia - "utopian communism" is redundant. Stalinism, in etmylogical terms, is not communism, but a derivant of it. This leads to many arguments. The collection of statements may be POV, but the entire NPOV policy is to represent all sides and arguments to give the reader an informed view. I reject the idea that it is a violation. -- Natalinasmpf 18:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same argument can be made about capitalism then. Luis rib 20:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you see the Marxist line is that communism isn't utopian at all, because it is a real and existing tendency within capitalism. It isn't simply 'an idea' or an idealised future society precisely because it is grounded in and will emerge from the conditions of the present society, viz the struggle between the working class and capital. I didn't explain that very well I'm afraid, but Marx goes into some detail on the point in the Manifesto of the Communist Party where he contrasts communism with the Utopian Socialism of various French thinkers, and Robert Owen as well I think. I point this out for the sake of information mainly. Mattley 22:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same argument cannot be made about capitalism, as some starving, and some living in opulance, with no guilty consciences, is the ideal. "Greed is good" remember?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Of course the same argument can be made about capitalism. The reason why capitalism has certain "drawbacks" is because of externalities, interference of the state, lack of competition, lack of information by consumers, ..... One could go on. Perfect capitalism does not exist. But, like Marx, theoreticians have argued that if it existed, those problems would all be overcome. Of course, it is utopian. But it is the same kind of argumentation

With respect to the "greed is good" argument, communism also makes assumptions that are, at best, questionable. Why, for instance, should people that work harder, or that spend a few years at university, be happy with equivalent salaries to people who don't and who stop after primary school? Why, actually, would anyone even try to work harder in those circumstances? Luis rib 22:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, wages are irrelevant, there is no currency and there are no wages, it's a gift economy. Take for example file-sharing networks, vast gift economies in implementation, there's very few on them who give a damn how many songs the person downloading from them has shared. Anyways, as to "greed is good", I'm not criticizing it, I'm saying that Capitalist ideology in and of itself encourages profit as the goal to the exclusion of all others. It encourages a system where some fall to the bottom, and some rise to the top, that's not an externality, that is the basis of capitalism. In fact, it only gets worse as we push in the direction of less government intervention, as hospitals and schools become privatized and the poor are left to rot without any services.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning gift economy: how is it supposed to work on a national scale? If I want a pineapple, how will I get it in a gift economy? Do I have to go to eBay to see who is willing to give away a pineapple? Also, how does a gift economy encourage people to work and to give their best? They are not sure anyone will give them anything afterwards... Concerning capitalism and greed: the idea is that in "perfect capitalism" those that fall to the bottom work less than those that rise to the top. But "perfect capitalism" would assume that everyone has the same opportunities from the start - which is clearly not the case. Indeed, poverty itself is a reason why many people have too few alternatives. That's why any moderate capitalist will argue that the state should help the poor by providing help for better education and access to free (or at least cheap) medical services. In utopian perfect capitalism, those aids would not be necessary since no-one would be disadvantaged from the start (I know, it's a circular argument - that's why it is an utopy). Since utopias don't exist, some level of state intervention is necessary - the question is then to find the right level. BTW, getting back to Ayn Rand, that's why I said she's an extremist - she's arguing for something that cannot exist in this world. Luis rib 23:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, gift economies have been put into practice for periods of time, spain during the civil war/revolution for example, and have worked. Basically, it cannot work in a state system, it requires local, direct democratic, federated collectives. Think of the collective as a small polis, where people know each other, or at least well enough that they would notice if someone was being a total parasite. I'm the bartender, you're the guy who works at the automobile plant syndicate, and ultramarine is the baker. Or at least he's supposed to be. You come to me and ask for a beer, I know you work at the plant and the syndicate gives away its cars for free, so I give it to you. Ultramarine comes to me and asks for beer. But I know he hasn't been giving food for months, and lied to get himself an extra car. So I don't give him jack, cause everyone's been lenient and now it's time to put the foot down. I decide I'll bring it up at the next general assembly in the collective, and everyone confronts him about it. Of course, this can be aided by the use of technology, perhaps smart cards to track statistics of production and consumption, and the ratios, both at an international level and a personal level. Perhaps an automated process that would notify your neighbours if those stats reached a certain ratio? A kind of red flag telling them you've been swindling, and letting them confront you or redicule you for it? Who knows. Guessing how it would work is pointless, but it's not complicated really. -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 23:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have a much better idea. I and some other progressive individuals decide to become pirates. The anarchistic society has no defence since an army and police would be the minarchist definition of a state. After getting rich on plundering I decide to invade some of the anarchist societies and to end my days as tyrant. Ultramarine 23:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except anarchists have no problem with these collectives training themselves and organizing themselves into decentralized, officerless militias, and don't give a damn what minarchists have to say about it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 00:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The rogue statists applaud this decision. Their professional, high-technology expensive army will easily crush the "decentralized, officerless militias" and plunder the anarchist societies. Or even simpler, they might decide to use biological or chemical weapons to cleanse the areas. Ultramarine 00:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a competition, I'm explaining to you the theoretical answers to your poorly understood challenges. The reality is, statelessness does not happen in a vacuum, though it may start in one place. Same with communism. IT would need to, and would, spread beyond any imaginary boundries statists have drawn in the sand. Revolutions have a tendency of going global when they go all the way. Much like feudalism is now nowhere to be seen, so too would capitalism and statism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 00:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

In essence you are saying the anarchism must implemented all over the world with no states left. Even if this somehow would become possible this still would not stop wars by aggressiv states. Because some of the anarchist communities might decide that it easier to take than to produce. So they organize and arm themselves for raiding on other communities. Since they concentrate all their resources on this they will be much stronger than the peaceful communities. Ultramarine 01:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why though? They are given what they need by other communities for free, what is the incentive?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

But they decide they want all of what the other communities have. Or the women. See what happen with anarchistic groups of hunter-gatherers. Many of these communities makes constant war with each other. Ultramarine 10:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But you don't see, war is destruction. Destruction of goods that would otherwise been given to them for free, or in a gift economy to be amplified into even more goods. Why make war when you have peace and economic equality? And a decentralised army is superior: it is fluid and intangible to the enemy; nearly infallible. -- Natalinasmpf 21:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to dialogue

Yes, our article capitalism suffers from the same attempts by utopian advocates. Some claim no capitalist society has ever existed. Someone says it is not propaganda. That implies that a serious theorist might believe this utopian vision could in fact exist. I never met them in real life. What I enountered is people who insisted something good might eventually come out of all the effort, but made excuses for the imperfect contemporary examples. Let's pretend, in short. Fred Bauder 01:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, a lot of pure capitalist (aka laissez faire) economies have always existed. You can't compare "utopian capitalism" to "utopian communism" - communism was designed for utopia, capitalism was just meant to further the goals of one individual over the other. There is no proposed model for "capitalist utopia", because there was no such thing as a "capitalist manifesto", for instance. You have investment for dummies books, economics books or teachings on how to make money and discussion, but it was never to achieve utopia. Because the system's success is not based on how well the community does: just one individual. Hence, this does not apply. Communism - is an socioeconomic model. Capitalism is a purely economic system. True capitalist societies have always existed, true communist entities that took over countries have never existed. -- Natalinasmpf 02:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Natalinasmpf, but your argument is strange. If communism is an utopia, it means it will never be possible to establish it. Thus, it is impossible to judge its merits, and therefore to say if it's good or not. In a sense, Communism would be like the Garden of Eden - another quasi-religious myth. The problem with utopias is that you cannot criticise them and not falsify them. That exactly why utopias are not scientifically valid. Sure, you can argue that communism could be so much better, but you have no means to either prove it or disprove it. I could also argue that Communism is very bad, but again would have no means to prove it. Therefore, if we confine communism to its uropian version, we should rewrite the whole article and compare it to other such utopias - like the Garden of Eden. BTW your view of capitalism is clearly totally biased, but you are right in one point: capitalism is not an utopia, it's not an ideology. That's why it is not perfect - nothing is - but at least it tries to improve things (and it certainly improved things if you compare it to feudalism or tribal economies). Seeking refuge in an utopia may be nice, but it's just a way to avoid taking difficult decisions. Luis rib 10:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No means to disprove or prove it? Communism is a pre-thought economic theory, capitalism is more of labelling of a pre-existing formula, ie. chaos theory in economics. Communism is an economic theory and pre-conceived system,, and therefore the article shoud concern it as such. Capitalism is also an economic system, and should be perceived as such. You can't demand that only the material on real-life communism be implemented, because you are forgetting that communism doesn't need to be an economic system of a nation to count as a valid theory...free software, kibbutzes, anyone? The Garden of Eden is not an ideology based on sociopolitical science.

Avoid taking difficult decisions? Are you kidding me? Oh well, continue in your defeatist attitude, but the etymylogy still remains. Communism is an economic theory, which has real life implementations, capitalism follows something similar. As long as capital (assigning an absolute value to materials to invest in) is used, its capitalism. As long as there is a commune-based society, with the correct conditions (if someone compromises, it is no longer communism), that is communism. Communism just happens to apply in more narrow situations. -- Natalinasmpf 19:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communism compared to Fascism, etc.

I know this will anger many people here, but shouldn't there be a section comparing Communism to other ideologies which are viewed as totalitarian? Or, if not here, maybe on Communist state? After all, it is a criticism that is often made. Also, it appears on Fascism, so at least there should be a link to that page. Waiting for your comments... Luis rib 11:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, maybe on communist state, though I still wouldn't support that unless it was a criticism of the blurring of class lines under left and right forms of bonapartism (as stalin and hitler did), and its dangers as a barrier to progress and a road to totalitarianism. Speaking of which, I wonder if wikipedia has an article on bonapartism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'll consider it for Communist state then. BTW, Stalin was y far not the only one to behave depotically; Lenin already exhibited such traits, though in a milder form. Also, Pol Pot was probably even worse than Stalin (at least in my opinion), and many of his policies had a Communist background: elimination of bourgeoisie (ok, he did it in a radical way), elimination of money, total egalitarianism (i.e. everyone had a number), ... Sure, it was a perversion of pure communism , but since pure communism is utopian, everything is a perversion. Luis rib 21:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stalin was the only one. As for pol pot, he was also a bonapartist, and his main class was the peasantry, that was what led to the perversion. The peasantry is even more reactionary than the bourgeoisie if allowed to take power. But anyways. I do think that if we go into a deep discussion of why things went so wrong it would be a very useful addition. By deep discussion, I mean more than just "communism=against human nature=totalitarianism" :P-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the following: you (or somebody else) said that you couldn't take the USSR or China or Cambodia as an example of a communist economy because they had tried to implement it in countries that were not truly capitalist yet - and that's why it failed economically (let's forget about the human rights issues for a sec). Yet wouldn't that imply that if Communists want to succeed, they should support Capitalism in every way they can since they know that the more the society becomes capitalist, the sooner capitalism will crumble under its own contradictions and the sooner communism will emerge? Luis rib 10:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see this earlier, sorry. No, I don't believe I've ever said that you couldn't take them as communist for that reason, but in Marxist terms, that was a big part of why they failed. Cambodia I wouldn't even consider a Communist movement, let alone state. Both China and Cambodia began from the getgo with a bonapartist view favouring the reactionary peasantry (though cambodia abandoned this in favour of a brutal peasant dictatorship as soon as it could). The same peasantry that hates the cities, and longs for the old days. It is not their culture that places their economic interests in the camp against progress and the future, but their economic interest which create that reactionary culture. They are an obsolete class, and cannot play any major role in the march forwards. In Russia, they were involved (hence the sickle), but they were meant to be on the fringes until the proletariat could take over entirely. Of course, whether I agree with any of these strategies is not an issue, the reality is that whatever strategies were taken, none of these states were Communist because their "goal" was not achieved. That goal is more or less global abolition of class society, money and states. With a few minor exceptions, just as today there are a few minor semi-feudal pockets in the world.

As for supporting the bourgeoisie, back in their hayday, yes, support for their struggles generally meant support for their anti-monarchist, anti-aristocratic revolts. Today however, and in Russia this was particularly at issue, Capitalism has degenerated to the point where there is no motive to "rock the boat" for them much anymore. It is preferable to strike a deal with the despots, and graft capitalism onto despotism, rather than risk an explosion of democratic control. That role as democratizing force can no longer be played by the bourgeoisie. In third world countries, as Russia and China were and some say are, the bourgeoisie preferred to ensure that role for itself, the role of despots, by subordinating the country to imperialist powers rather than developing its infrastructure in any meaningful way. Those nations became nothing more than raw resource buffets, and never moved on. Looking at Russia, we can see that quite clearly, despite the huge problems, the tasks that the bourgeoisie were supposed to carry out were only possible under the control of a shaky alliance of proletariat and peasantry. Even today, the Russia bourgeoisie has still not moved beyond their stagnant nature. This is why today "supporting Capitalism" is not possible. Communists believe we are actually a part of those contradictions within Capitalism, at least a magnifying force. Wow... that was long, I hope it answers a few questions and makes some sense.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, in response to Luis' original argument, you're basically asking, shouldn't the immune system support viruses and bacteria and pathogens in every way because the they do so, the sooner the evolutionary drive to develop a better immune system emerges? The idea is to fight the pathogens, and so is the same thing for communism. -- Natalinasmpf 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarianism and Utopianism are Sociological impossibilities

Totalitiarianism is sociologically impossible, and has existed no where except in the works of fiction, and the minds of writers such as Orwell. Utopianism, which often seems to be similiar to totalitarianism; is the same. The terms should be totally striked from the article, atleast when talking of scientific communism, such as Marxism(-Leninism). --Mista-X 17:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which terms? The term "utopianism"/"utopian", or the terms classified as being "utopian"? Also totalitarianism, yes that is true, it means when the government has total control (to an extent), bu t the idea "approaching totalitarianism" could be a true statement. Generally, if someone is starving, but say, has only been starving for a week, and if no one continues to give him food, it would be correct to say he's approaching death, no? -- Natalinasmpf 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communism is Totalitarian

Unfortunately, the commies here on Wikipedia prevent communism from rightfully being treated in the same manner as nazism and fascism. Therefore, the crimes of communism are whitewashed, rationalized and equivocated away.

--Unsigned comment by User:212.202.51.84 Slac speak up! 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC).

To be frank, it would be nice if the editing process on this page could be something other than a "dialectic" between communist-sympathetic and communist-antipathetic users. But I don't particularly think name-calling is going to help anything much. Slac speak up! 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crimes? Or hijackings by state capitalists? -- Natalinasmpf 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The commies" That is just plain ignorant and babyish. Just because you may be a patriot of democracy or some such sh!t does not mean that you are right. As a matter of fact it seems that the USA tries to be totalitarian. They invade countries whose form of government they disagree with. Too bad that it was impossible for them to invade the USSR for all that time.

What Communism should be but rarely is:

I personally think that communism should be a group effort to survive in all cases. Maybe the reason that it ends up failing so much is that these days there is always surplus and therefore the people that live in the society don't feel a need to share anything. Communism should have no classes whatsoever. Everyone should get paid according to the value of their service. In other words a garbage man can make as much as a doctor because he helps to avoid the very thing that the doctor is trying to cure! Everything needs to be controlled and surplus Italic textmust be held backItalic text in order to use it when it is only most necessary. People in government would be the only "higher ups" because they are really the only ones that know what's going on and are providing the greatest service to the people. Everything would be shared. Take for example a city block. There are four houses on the block and the block has at its service several cars that can be signed out on a certain day to the members of one house, a house that they do not own! The state owns everything but you just use it. Obviously it would be different for small things that must be owned for their existence to make sense. Mass transit is a better solution for transportation issues. Although Lenin said that "any idea of a god at all is the most unspeakable foulness" religion should not be discouraged.

Questions or comments?

That's not communism, that's state socialism. Communism has no wages or money, and no state. Marxist Communism is also meant to efficiently use surplus and limit it to a certain extent, not abolish it. Surplus foods obviously would not be produced, whereas under capitalism enough food is produced to feed a world population 4 times this size. Which of course farmers are paid to burn, because prices would collapse if enough food for everyone was available. Under Communism, things are produced out of need, and not for profit, so the enormous surplus of food that is wasted would not be there, but neither would we be paying farmers to artificially create scarcity.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 21:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this would be environmental too, as well. Long-term comfort. Under capitalism, enough food is produced to feed the world population four times over but its not well distributed as well. That's the main thing, everyone could eat four times as much if well distributed, but then also cut down to say....save the soil for fertility, prevent overcultivation etc. You produce 4 times as much now, lose out 16 times more later. Bad thing. Hence a further concurrence with your statement, which I would agree with. But its not also produced out of need, but far-sighted comfort. That means its not based on an impulse for profit and ever-increasing stress, but for insightful comfort.

Oh... I see. In this world then it is impossible to have pure communism because the country would most likely be overun. Then there is only one necessity and that would be a state becuase there is no other way to keep up the society in a country and not have it overun. I also didn't say to eliminate surplus. I said to save it until it is necessary. Also when forming a communist "state" you couldn't start out right away with no money. You would need to bring it in gradually since all of your citizens would be used to the idea of money. It would be useful to indoctrinate the children into not feeling the need for money. How could you prevent people from just taking advantage of free luxury items anyway? There is a need for money in the beginning but after that it can be eliminated.

The country would not be overrun. In pure communism, the concept of a country would be abolished. Why have a country? Nations seem "normal" because its been there all your life and you can't imagine a system without one, but you should realise that, a country has no real benefit at all. The unity and co-operation, and cohesion of a country can be implemented through society: the sense of a nation at all isn't beneficial. People fight for a nation and a state for an irrational reason and no true reason like "it benefits the society", family, or policies. Ie. communism would prefer fighting to defend your culture, your values, the economy, but not a nation. If the government goes awry it wouldn't encourage loyalty to it, whereas a nation would. This is why communism is anti-nationalistic, thus anti-Nazi. Note that a government doesn't mean a state - in communism it would be self-government with peer management, rather than having any leaders (but possibly speakers with no more power than the average citizen, but with the duty to inform and argue for or against a policy). In a communist society, one can start out without any say, central budget. Rather what happens is you give gifts to each other without accepting payment. Then the recipients and givers extend their circle, say, I start giving software, food, housing, without paying money. The farmer would give free dinners from his livestock, then say, one of them is a computer maker. The computer maker appreciates the gifts, and say, gives free computers to automate say, the chicken producing process. This benefits both farmer and the community, who receives more food, gives more to the farmer, who the community benefits, would also appreciate the computer maker, the software developer, the architecht building the automated chicken house... The ultimate could be when the circle is enough to say, overthrow without violence at all: it has become the majority of the population who can choose not to comply, not to pay taxes. But of course the participants have to have money, just that the society doesn't need a central treasury. Also, there's no need to indoctrinate, you can slowly absorb adults.

Indoctrination? Too much capacity for abuse. -- Natalinasmpf 23:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Productivity falls as you increase taxation. People do not work to pay taxes. I have worked harder in the SAME job as my 'ciggarette break' taking collegues do. Thats why i should be payed more, because i work harder, i do twice as much as these young layabouts. Money is reward for hard work. People will always expect payment, women will sell their bodies for favours if you abolish fair payment and men will always gamble. Communism will fail because men like me will always exist. Communism failed for these very reasons, oh and remember under who's 'reign' the Gulag was begun. The leadership of china seem very wealthy. Just like George Galloway in his Second home in portugal! There has never been a true socialist in power. Power corrupts comrades. Welcome to the real world. -- (Unsigned comment by 81.132.70.251)

Yes but the idea of communism is to abolish the state. Not increase taxation. Who gave you idea about increasing taxes? Furthermore the idea as taxes increase, so the amount of benefits you receive from the state. However this results in some central planning, abuse and inefficiency, which is state socialism, aka Leninism, which is not what true communists advocate. Plus, you are an age discriminator because you assume that the younger are less experienced and therefore less skilled, this is such a untrue thing (intelligence over experience)...but that is irrelevant. In a communist society, you are APPRECIATED more for hard work, hence receive more gifts. Read the actual article, and actually read, will you? You cite the Soviet Union, China, gulag, etc. but let me remind you that is state socialism, and even state capitalism, therefore contrary to the true ideal and (whose governments all true communists, anarcho-communists despise). Leadership of China is wealthy because it is capitalist. There has never been a true communist in power because true communists do not seek power, but seek comfort - in peer review, a gift economy, and lack of stress, caused by an egalitarian pursuit. Those who a power-hungry aren't true communists because they are short sighted and repress their populace, which is short-sighted, and they lose our spiritually and intellectually in the end. Because they suppress the amount of amplified returns the receive through a gift economy. Communism advocates a GIFT ECONOMY. Bolsheviks, Stalinists, Maoists and Leninists and other hijackers of the cause are state capitalists who tried to seize the oppurtunity to sadistically repress the cause, not true communists, are evil, should be despised and ridiculed and be done away with for all I care. Communism does not advocate an all powerful state, nor a "dictatorship of the proleteriat". This is inane. "Communist state" is oxymoronic. -- Natalinasmpf 04:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Communist state" is indeed a contradiction in terminis, as Lenin repeatedly points out in his book "State and Revolution". Socialism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat", which is a transitional system in which the majority of the people - the ex-oppressed - oppress a minority - the ex-capitalists. When this socialist state has "died off" (which of course until now has never happened because no socialist state in history has survived for a significant time), we get communism. Socialism is a necessary phase because of the inevitable counter-revolution of the former ruling class. However, I would not say Bolsheviks and Lenin are "hijackers of the cause", although I completely agree to decribe Stalinists, Maoists in this way, and of course all kinds of reformists and opportunists. It is also true that many people who call themselves "Marxist-Leninists" (like Stalin!) are in fact Stalinists, and hijacking marxism. I suggest you read what Lenin wrote on this topic. -- Jon Sneyers, April 30, 2005

I disagree about the socialist transition state being necessary. Why do you need to implement a state? When the revolution has taken power, isn't it true the framework can be formed right away? A gift economy forms immediately after seizure of former state resources. Or it can happen without a revolution, but rather a gradual assimilation into communism. (Ie. you establish a commune that still pays taxes and everything, then slowly recruit, then finally it gets so big one day the commune declares the abolition of the state and is strong enough to destroy the state, because the society that supported the state now is in the commune.) Isn't it true, that as a common soldier who fought in a revolution, that as an egalitarian revolutionary, you have a right for a voice in the government rather than having the leaders of the revolution? Isn't it true that oppressing the bourgeoisie leads to a bad response? The idea is equality, not forming a new tyranny. Shouldn't a direct democracy be established of sorts, as it becomes a decentralised community? By treating the former oppressors as equals, you bring them to your side. True, they were once your enemies, but now they are powerless. If you respect their rights, they will start to contribute...think of Wikipedia's "assume good faith" idea. Repay evil for good, and you lump hot coals on your enemies' heads and make them a footstool for your feet. This also avoids the slippery slope when it comes to defining the bourgeoisie. When you can oppress one group of people, the definitions can be expanded by the state to many others. That is the problem. You don't even need a state in the first place. You can implement principles and incentives that will coerce the bourgeoisie into cooperating like everybody else, but not having to oppress. -- Natalinasmpf 21:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You sound rather utopian, and do not seem to understand/agree with dialectic materialism. Do you honestly think that there will be no contra-revolution because you are gonna be "nice to the capitalists"; treat them as equals (and taking back their means of production and their profits). Don't you think the working class has to organize itself in a centralist and democratic way to defend the revolution? Wouldn't cause an immediate change from capitalism to a gift economy people to stop working and take more than they need? I suggest you read what Lenin wrote in "State and Revolution". -- Jon Sneyers, May 1, 2005

Utopian? To the contrary - I am actually discouraged and currently view the only method for a communist society to occur is not through dictatorship of the proleteriat but an immediate gift economy. Peer pressure can work immediately and suppress the materialist sentiment. Should a violent counter revolution occur, we have the right to take up arms against them, but otherwise no, we'd be hypocritical. We have to organise ourselves in a centralised and democratic way but as we start making economic policies we shift into decentralised gear. However, there must never ever be a dictatorship of any kind, there must never ever be a constitutional monarchy of any kind, not even a representative democracy - it must be close to a direct democracy as possible. -- Natalinasmpf 23:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lets analyse the word "communism" shall we? "Commune - ism" - ideology of the commune. Does it SAY anything about an authoritarian government? No. Does it say anything about dictatorship of the proleteriat? No. But what does it say? "Common" can be traced from "commune"! A community! A peer-based economy! A peer-based government! So please stop confusing communism with Leninism, Bolshevism, Pol Potism, or any other repressive ideologies. Leninism, etc. is an attempt to hijack the communist cause into making its the naive blindly commit themselves to a totalitarian state, and an act of perjury, slander, libel and defamation. That's right, the hijackers of the cause are slanderers and liars as well as human rights abusers. Communism is anarchism (just different aspects of the same ideology), and should not be confused with totalitarian ideologies. Totalitarians like Stalin, Trotsky (who was really evil anyway thanks to his actions at Kronstadt), Lenin (who dissolved the Duma, his soul can burn in the lake of sulfur), Pol Pot, Castro, etc. can get their souls tormented for all I care. However true communists like say...Emma Goldman are the real kind of communists who people ought to recognise as actual communists. (Note, I do not advocate posting this in the main article, I am just replying tit for tat to reactionary arguments, since you post your opinion, I post mine). -- Natalinasmpf 04:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OleMarxco from RevLeft here, in the hood. Well, me thinkesth that a real Communism has a decantralized system of control totally unlike what Soviet and China practised (which I look upon as State Capitalism - more like "Capitalists of the world, unite!") and also needs to go trough a stage of Capitalism first since industrialization must be follow trough the order that Marx wrote. Russia went straight from Feudalism to Communism, obviously that would not work. It insisted to both keep the STATE, a VANGUARD PARTY as some class -over- the proletarians, and were DEFINATELY not Communism. And communism is DEFINATELY not Anarchism, anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron: Anarchy is like "invidual over the group", Communism is collectivized communes working togheter in a perfect balance of industries and equal treatment of the people before the law: One being rewarded with material possesions proportional with your involvation in society. Excess money is flattened out to everyone, and abolished: It is impossible to "buy" oneself out of an encounter with the law by buying tricky lawyers. Therefore, there is no "classes", that is, so unlike the totalarian wannabe-Communisms, when there is a loss of resources, the weakening does not create a "scism" and a "crack" seperating people, one resources tilting to one side of society over the other, creating differences in wealth. It would decrease at society as a whole. All work is optional, but is rewarded by getting everything by rations the sooner the more you CHOOSE to work (Thus removing some people getting more money than they work for society! And no "inheriting"!)- Wherever you want, it is job rotation so you don't have to work somewhere solely to produce more than needed, but where you are needed. That is Communism - a very noble vision, indeed. But...spoiled. Capitalism is STILL not good enough, it is currently now bosses over workers, and the first world over the third world! EXPLOITING. BAH! Long live the hammer and the sickle.--OleMurder 16:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But ah, don't treat Marx like dogma! Sure he had the right spirit, but not necessarily an entirely correct theory. Just as Newton wasn't totally correct with his idea of gravity (its relative to the space time curve, not just a simplistic force), I feel Marx is only partially correct. Industrialisation isn't needed for a successful society to occur - you set up the society first, THEN you industrialise. Anarcho-communism is hardly an oxymoron: anarchy is the "no individual has more power than another individual", power in the sense of ecopolitical oppurtunity power, not stressing that individuals should do whatever they want and run rampant with anomie. One is rewarded with economic and social resources in a gift economy for involvement in the community and thus being appreciated. Because money isn't used, no hoarding, abuse, poverty cycles and the like occurs. Communism has no higher state to enforce the law: it has principles. PEERS enforce laws. This prevents abuse from ever, ever happening (unlike the compromise of representative democratic socialism which has loopholes for abuse and plutocracy to occur). In an anarcho-communist society, there will probably be the scheme of ostraca, but in a more highly implemented form to say, provide an incentive for working for the food you receive freely. Else, people can just break off giving gifts to you. And since this isn't regulated centrally or by a higher power, there isn't any abuse. A gift economy has no "rations" - gifts are left to discernment. Contribute little, receive little. Contribute a lot, a lot of resources are used to invest in say, farming, technology, which produces more, hence growth, hence you win out by giving more, since the risk is very low. No one executes one another for not working (but except in cases of armed conflict or murder) because freedoms are respected. You cannot "ration" out rewards. It is left to the peers. If you don't work, people are disgusted at you and don't give to you. But the thing is, its based on empathy, rather than rigid laws. When its decentralised, its more flexible and people can sense the circumstances. For example, if you just lost your parents and your gift giving falls 50%, most people are generally going to be sympathetic. In a rigid law based society this probably wouldn't happen too much. Economic flexibility => higher economic growth => harmony et al. => decentralisation means harder to be attacked by enemies, easier to attack enemies. (Anybody who playes Weiqi knows this. Fluid! Formless! And your enemies will not know where to attack.) -- Natalinasmpf 20:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is all very helpful and very LOGICAL!!! I don't see how capitalism even survives really. Lenin was partly right in that a communist revolution needs to happen everywhere at once to stay alive. Screw the thing about underdeveloped countries helping developed countries into being communists. Everything that has ever been called communism in human memory has been Capitalistic State Socialism! The reason the USA was so adamant about destroying "communism" was because the term was being missaplied to State Socailism. Communism would be the best thing that could ever happen to a society. But because of the USSR, China, North Korea, and Vietnam communism (which was actually state socialism) has made a bad name for itself. I seriously doubt that nearly anyone who thinks that they know what communism is really does know what it means. When people refer to communism they think "Communism= USSR= Evil!" If anyone knew what communism really was they would all (hopefully) join a movement. When setting up communism there would need to be mild administration at first until everyone got themselves organized. (and the politicians of this world are killed.) And now that i know what communism really is... I luv it!

That's why I hope all of you will help me overthrow the US government by educating the proletariat! God, I hate capitalism. Who here is with me? Email me at "[email protected]"!-- Terre Lotliby

Aye, you have my support I suppose. There is time for a change, and the hell away from all this Neo-Con bullshit we've gotten weaved into now. Hooray for revolution, and let us not repeat the previous faults! No Vanguard Party! Go Communism!--OleMurder 22:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well Ole... One reason I would not join your cause is that I feel no reason to work to the collective good. I LIKE working to better me and mine. I like getting money for "frivolous" things, such as my Harley, that mean a lot to me but might seem luxurious to you. Why should I give up these things for some dubious vision of the 'greater good'? Tom S.

Good edit

Good edit User:Natalinasmpf, you are quite correct. The soviet union wasn't much of a dictatorship after Stalin, and China isn't really a dictatorship either. Sam Spade 10:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarian is a term that is itself questionable, not just in this case, but in general, as it serves nothing more than a propaganda purpose. It defines dictatorships that keep the economic status-quo as authoritarian, and dictatorships that don't as totalitarian, which is rediculous. The use of the term totalitarian here is improper. Furthermore, I think that part of that paragraph should sijmply be moved to the communist party or communist state pages.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Um... What are you trying to say? If you're making a point, dont you think that your point would be better advanced through clear language and open reasoning? Tom S.

I think your POV is pretty clear, you wear it on your shirt sleeve and all ;) Sam Spade 21:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on totalitarian. The term itself is in dispute and POV. Hence using it is akin to using "terrorist", it's something we should avoid.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

And what's wrong with "terrorist"? Both terms are usually clearly defined, and only through attempting to not offend the person/groups to which the terms are attached do they lose their meaning. "Terrorist" is one who, through raising "collateral" targets to the primary level attempts to advance a cause through fear and/or chaos. "Totalitarian" is a governmental entity which attempts total (hence TOTALitarian) control over any regulatable aspect of life.

I demand that all previous self-proclaimed "Communist"-countries gets moved instead to "State-Capitalism". That goes for both China and Soviet. At very least these were awkward socialist states with a insane vanguard party gone strait from Feudalism.--OleMurder 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I demand $1,000,000 and a helicopter! Sam Spade 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Once I get the $1,00,000 and find the appropriate helicopter. :) Tom S.

My Two Cents (A Prcing Pun)

What it all comes down to is that every experimental or serious attempt at Communism, large and small, has for a variety of reasons, failed. Capitalism is still going strong. When the whole Capitalist juggernaut goes Kablooie, then Communists may have room to criticize it... IF they ever get their thing going. Tom S.

Somehow almost all the states and societies that attempted socialism or communism or something similar collapsed. Yet capitalist states thrive despite (or because?) all their decried failures. Is there some lesson to all this? Even my former student residence - where some kind of communism had emerged during my first two years - collapsed into chaos after the fourth year. I must say this rather personal experience of the failure of communism has convinced me that it is unworkable in reality. Luis rib 5 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Good edit

Good edit User:Natalinasmpf, you are quite correct. The soviet union wasn't much of a dictatorship after Stalin, and China isn't really a dictatorship either. Sam Spade 10:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarian is a term that is itself questionable, not just in this case, but in general, as it serves nothing more than a propaganda purpose. It defines dictatorships that keep the economic status-quo as authoritarian, and dictatorships that don't as totalitarian, which is rediculous. The use of the term totalitarian here is improper. Furthermore, I think that part of that paragraph should sijmply be moved to the communist party or communist state pages.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Um... What are you trying to say? If you're making a point, dont you think that your point would be better advanced through clear language and open reasoning? Tom S.

I think your POV is pretty clear, you wear it on your shirt sleeve and all ;) Sam Spade 21:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on totalitarian. The term itself is in dispute and POV. Hence using it is akin to using "terrorist", it's something we should avoid.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

And what's wrong with "terrorist"? Both terms are usually clearly defined, and only through attempting to not offend the person/groups to which the terms are attached do they lose their meaning. "Terrorist" is one who, through raising "collateral" targets to the primary level attempts to advance a cause through fear and/or chaos. "Totalitarian" is a governmental entity which attempts total (hence TOTALitarian) control over any regulatable aspect of life.

I demand that all previous self-proclaimed "Communist"-countries gets moved instead to "State-Capitalism". That goes for both China and Soviet. At very least these were awkward socialist states with a insane vanguard party gone strait from Feudalism.--OleMurder 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I demand $1,000,000 and a helicopter! Sam Spade 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Once I get the $1,00,000 and find the appropriate helicopter. :) Tom S.

My Two Cents (A Pricing Pun)

What it all comes down to is that every experimental or serious attempt at Communism, large and small, has for a variety of reasons, failed. Capitalism is still going strong. When the whole Capitalist juggernaut goes Kablooie, then Communists may have room to criticize it... IF they ever get their thing going. Tom S.

Somehow almost all the states and societies that attempted socialism or communism or something similar collapsed. Yet capitalist states thrive despite (or because?) all their decried failures. Is there some lesson to all this? Even my former student residence - where some kind of communism had emerged during my first two years - collapsed into chaos after the fourth year. I must say this rather personal experience of the failure of communism has convinced me that it is unworkable in reality. Luis rib 5 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

uh... that's what I said, aint it? :op Tom S.

yep. Was just agreeing with you. Luis rib 6 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Crit. Section

Is this supposed to be serious criticism? These sentences were some of the worst offenders:

Some also point to the chimpanzees and other primates...

What kind of chimpanzee? Common chimpanzees and bonobos have extremely different behaviours, although both are far more genetically similar to each other than they are to humans. The reference to other primates seems a little too vague.

The so-called selfish gene view of evolution is that natural selection acts on genes rather than collectives

This is a misrepresentation of the "selfish-gene" theory. The "selfish gene" theory says nothing about how the individual should behave. What it says is that genes evolve in a way that helps to propagate their own survival regardless of the positive, negative, or neutral effects on the individual or group. If cooperation helps all the individuals involved, and thus helps to maximize the distribution of those individuals' genes, then cooperation will evolve (remember even in the selfish gene theory it is still the individual that must survive and propagate). This misrepresentation is so egregious that it begs for a citation.

Much of the criticism section seems to just be the POV of the editors here, is there any sources for this criticism? If not, I might start deleting some of the obvious garbage within the next few days. millerc 8 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

"Communism" or "communism"

It should be mentioned, but it certainly doesn't belong in the "future" section. Where should we put it? --Kennyisinvisible 9 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Communism a branch of socialism???

"As a political movement, communism is a more radical branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through their wish to completely do away with all aspects of market society under the final stage of the system ..."

Erm, unless I'm sorely mistaken Socialism is a branch of Communism, not the other way around. --Kennyisinvisible 9 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Yes, communism is a branch of the socialist movement. The idea that socialism is a branch of the communist movement comes from the idea that it's a compromise for communist systems, which it isn't. Rather, communism is the most extreme branch of the socialist movement. However, Marxist-Leninism tends tends to go towards populism, while Kroptokin and communist anarchism is the most extreme branch of the libertarian socialist movement. Socialism has other movements (besides social democracy, which is probably what you're thinking of, democratic socialism (which is actually different), a form of bourgeois socialism (to appease), and various other forms as well. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)

Recent reverts

...requires greater rationality or wisdom for the planners, or voters, or workers' council members, than is consistent with the bounded rationality of the species.

If this wording is seen to be imperfect, the concept must be expressed. One of the obvious failings of communism is that not only are humans not morally capable of intituting equality, they are also intellectually incapable. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a problem is the phrase bounded rationality, which comes from a generally antipathetic ideological position, and also implies that communism is somehow inherently naive and/or not humanly possible.Grant65 (Talk) 13:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism comes from "critics," see further discussion under that subheading below. Every ideological subject in wiki has a "criticism of" heading, as do scientific theories such as Darwinism, etc. And the criticism expressed there alwats comes from "antipathetic...positions" because that's where one would expect criticism to come from. Why is that a problem?

--Christofurio 20:11, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

If humans are not morally capable of "intituting" equality, then what could be? Equality in this sense is not even well-defined, and given a moral definition of fairness (of which there are a few contenders), humans could certainly approach the goal as they do any other.--Csmcsm 02:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps they could approach equality for themselves as individuals, but it would be more difficult to decide for others. Consider how individual the decision of whether to work an extra hour is, or to take if off, or to volunteer an hour. Prices, in the context of freedom, can aid in the decision, but ultimately the decision is individual. Equality is easy to apply if all individuals are identical, but the evidence is that even "identical" twins, aren't.--Silverback 07:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really have to stop using that 'twins' line. Physical makeup has nothing to do with equality (or equity, which is what we should be talking about). Certainly any normative view on either would be better than what capitalism has achieved so far.--Csmcsm 20:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism isn't done yet. Equality in poverty is better than inequality in wealth if one accepts the norm of envy, but why be so materialistic. Do you have any evidence for the certainty you assert, I doubt it can be achieved short of a tautology?--Silverback 22:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is clarified as a criticism. And of course communism is inherently naive and/or not humanly possible, thats the point! ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Sam. Thanks for the support. Criticism of an ideological position often cocomes from an "antipathetic ideological position"! What a shock. The NPOV thing to do is to state the various antipathetic positions fairly, and some of our communist friends seem averse to having that done here. --Christofurio 17:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The criticism is so naive I don't understand how such clever people as you, Sam can fall for it. Please explain how communism requires greater rationality for voters, council members, planners, etc. than, say, for President of the US of A, the SEC commission and Federal Reserve?

Let us forget for a second that the article is about communist ideology, not about its communist state. I understand that much of criticism comes from the thought that communists were planning everything, and this is humanly impossible, no doubt. But this is a naive college-grade understanding of communism, similar to the rumors that communists have everything common: common wives, common shoes and common toothbrushes. Another misunderstanding is that plans were something chiseled in stone. Of course there were not. They were always corrected through the course of the time. Sitll, please, this is not criticism of communism. This is criticism af any centrally planned economy, and hence belongs to the latter article.

Still another point, who told you that in communist state everything was planned for best of all people? That would require inhuman amount of planning for sure. In Soviet Union the planning was for good of the state in the first turn. People were treated as livestock; bare minimality. Mikkalai 19:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten and don't plan to forget that this article is about communist ideology, and I've done nothing to try to change the focus to communist states. The point, though, is that communism as described in the rest of this very article would require a sort of planning that would supplant markets and for-profit exchanges, rather than the sort that works through that medium. Most actual "communist" states give up on this idea pretty quickly -- it didn't take Lenin himself very long to retreat into the New Economic Policy. When I say such things, I often hear, "Oh yes, but next time will be different, we'll have majority rule." Sorry, but the problem is with the agenda. (There are other problems as well, having to do with the dynamics of revolutions, but that is the problem targeted by this criticism.) And, yes, this criticism belongs also in other articles. It doesn't follow it ought to be deleted from this one. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well the correlation between a command economy and communism is obviously that all prominent Communist states (before liberalization) have implemented a command economy. There has never been a country where the final classless communist phase was achieved and the government lost all its form, as Marx puts it. Trey Stone 03:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And one more: about alleged imposibility of total planning. If it were so, modern microchips could not possibly have beed designed and you wouldn't have this wonderful computer to type your naive arguments in. Ever heard about hierarchical approach to compex tasks? Mikkalai 19:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The distinction remains between planning within the context created by market exchanges and planning deprived of that context. You might spend a lot of time and effort devising a new and better microchip -- you must eventually sibmit it to the ultimate test of whether other freely contracting parties want to invest in its mass production, and their decision will have a lot to do with whether other freely contracting parties will want to buy it. Planning as a way of disrupting that higgle-haggle is uniformly a disaster, for reasons at whicht he critique in this article has hinted. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that few people have heard of "bounded rationality" and even fewer would agree that it is an accurate reflection of human beings. Maybe I should try inserting a bit of kitsch marxist jargon, just to see how long it lasts, on the Friedrich von Hayek page. That would be analagous to this new passage. Sam and Christofurio have illustrated their concept of "NPOV" remarkably well I think. Grant65 (Talk) 01:30, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that I cease struggling with this addition. It dawned upon me that it perfectly shows the brain damage of the "critics". Mikkalai 03:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good to see the depth of your commitment to civility. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

As opposed to those brilliant Communist theorists (whose favored states only collapsed due to imperialist pressure) Trey Stone 03:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marx had no chance to favor communist Mongolia and China (which is going to kick someone's ass yet). Mikkalai 03:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Communist in political structure, reformist in economic structure. Trey Stone 04:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, as communism is fundamentally an economic system, and less than 50% of the Chinese economy is owned by the state — a smaller proportion than in many OECD countries in the 1970s — China isn't even socialist, let alone communist any more. But maybe it will be again. For the moment it's a capitalist dictatorship of the neo-bourgeoisie ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

And oh, some bright kiddo wrote in comments: revert to Spade. punishment is not an intrinsic part of communist ideology. I guess in his study of communist ideology he didn't reach the chapter about dictatorship of the proletariat yet. Mikkalai

Perhaps that was written in response to whomever wrote this inanity "Lacking economic interests, there are two other major incentives: fear of punishment (as in slavery) and common benevolence of people (which is disputable)." I'm not sure what system or ideology was being talked about, but it was apparently written by a person unfamiliar with power, sex, status or any other of the basis of freshman psych, advertising or anthropology.--Silverback 05:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Sex as driving force of economic development! Dare to write a wikiarticle on this? Mikkalai 06:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a language barrier, you brought up non-economic incentives, or did you mean something different by "lacking economic interests". Your concept, whatever it was, was not stated very clearly in english, although you apparently don't see that.--Silverback 08:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You got me here. I was trying to correct the phrase "that it would remove incentives necessary for productivity". As you pointed out himself, there are plenty of various incentives, and it is ridiculous to think that communism removed all of them. You are so involved in proving that I am wrong that you don't see that the phrasing lacks merit, to say it civilisedly. But like I said, I will no longer edit this piece, an example of brain damage of critics. Mikkalai 18:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have two things to say here. #1, that central planning isn't supposed to be the end result in the communist ideology. That is socialism. And that anarchists often disregard this at all. #2: Dictatorship of the proleteriat, and punishment is also in itself socialism. Marxist-Leninism proposes using socialism as a interim period between capitalism and communism, so the concept that punishment and dictatorship of the proleteriat being associated with communism isn't that wrong, just that its meant as a intermediate measure, not the end measure. -- Natalinasmpf 22:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The slavemasters whip

Please see Talk:Communism#Human_nature. This ridiculous false dicotomy between "fear of the whip" and "common benevolence" (what the heck is that?) as forms of incentives is insane. Please look up reinforcement, Operant conditioning, and economics. Fear of punishment is not a major factor in the economies of the west (outside of prison, perhaps), and I think its easier to describe say.. Pol Pots communism as having been a slavery-based economy than even the pre-civil war united states south (even ancient egypt or feudalism had alot more to the economy than fear as an incentive, and not only financialy). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 08:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you on about? And what does it have to do with exogenous, anachronistic and hostile RCT concepts/jargon being used in an article about communism? Grant65 (Talk) 10:02, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

There was no dichotomy. Even less it was applied to the modern West. These were examples of other possible incentives, in addition to economic. The sole problem is my bad command of English. Sorry for confusion. Next time when dealing with complicated issues I will begin with a proposal at the talk page. Mikkalai 18:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear what I'm on about, and it has nothing to do w anything "exogenous" ;). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human nature

To such objections, communists reply that human nature is misrepresented by capitalists. For example, under slavery, slave owners said blacks were lazy and stupid and that whippings were necessary for productivity. Thus, communists say under what they consider capitalist wage slavery, that the same type of arguments are made as an excuse for the capitalists to expropriate surplus value from workers. This fails to take into account the role of reinforcers in Behavioral psychology, and confuses punishing reinforcers (whippings) with positive reinforcers (money).

I think starvation could be considered a punishing reinforcer. The slavemaster never threatened to starve his property. And wouldn't the food and shelter provided to the slave be a positive reinforcer just as money to buy food and shelter be to the wage slave? If capitalism was all positive reinforcers, the enclosure of the commons would never have been necessary. Ruy Lopez 19:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I pointed out the weakness of this section, but decided since it was such a poor argument that it was likely not verifiable, and was probably just an idea one of the editors had. If someone can cite it, they can feel free to restore it. My critique based on behavioural psychology certainly will be finding its way back into the text, as lack of proper incentive (positive reinforcement) is one of the more glaring logical errors of Communism (right up there with atheism). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you are most welcome to re-insert that famous Straw man into the article. But rest assured that I will also insert the 4 different communist refutations of it (yes, that argument is flawed in four different ways, and one of the counter-arguments mentions the fact that communism does, in fact, offer positive reinforcement to the people participating in it - while also relying on human rationality). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

?how is human psychology a straw man? And how does communism reward superior performance? Isn't that in contridiction to "to each according to his need"? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Sam, "superior performance" was both needed and rewarded in the Soviet/Maoist-type systems because they started from low bases of economic development. A corollary of this is that those underdeveloped societies were never communist in the sense that Marx himself understood communism. The societies which Marx actualy had in mind were the most developed countries. (The reasons why the first successful revolutions did not occur in the developed nations are a whole different debate.) Although all basic needs, and a wide range of consumer goods/services, would be available in a truly communist society, achievers would still be rewarded by accolades/ fame/etc. Of course some people always want more of any material thing than they can ever use, but as Engels said, in the higher phase of communism, they would simply be "laughed at". (Presumably because of the operant conditioning of communism *LOL*) I know it's hard to get your head around the idea that we already live in a state of abundance, albeit one scrambled and disfigured by (economic) class relations, but I suggest you think about it.Grant65 (Talk) 10:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your reply is nonsensical. We live in a state of abundance because we have a powerful economic base, derived from capitalism. I am in Germany, and while the country on the whole is well off, the eastern half had (and still has) a serious disadvantage due to having been ruined by communism. And if Marxism supplies "operant conditioning" of "fame" instead of cash rewards, why were even ballerina's and Olympic athletes (positions rewarded largely by fame in the west) especially well paid in communism, while "collective" farm laborers were periodically starved to death w artificial famines regardless of how hard they worked, often on the very land which had been stolen from them by the "egalitarianism" of communism. I think that's the sort of fame they would have preferred to do without, and has little to do with either business psychology or operant conditioning. 10 pounds of propaganda doesn't buy you one pound of bread. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree with both of you, we live in a time of scarcity. Demand for goods and services would be much higher if the prices were set to zero, and assuming the supply would be insufficient at that price, what goods and services were available would have to be rationed by some other means.--Silverback 10:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. First, scarcity and abundance are relative. Second, economics is all about the allocation of resources.Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It is about the allocation of scarce resources. "Abundant" resources in the economic sense, don't need to be allocated.--Silverback 12:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And your point is? BTW, do you mind not inserting your responses in the middle of other people's posts? IMO it makes the page hard to read.Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

My point economists are concerned with scarcity, if something must be allocated it is still scarce, even if some consider it relatively abundant. It is part of the basic definition of modern economics and price theory. BTW, I don't mind not inserting, but I disagree and find it more a more readable way to respond to particular points in multi-paragraph passages, since the response can be put immediately after the point. But as we have just illustrated, the value of that is subjective, you find it less valuable even though it took me more labor to produce.--Silverback 17:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the DDR was never communist in any meaningful sense, because the system there was exogenous ;-), i.e. it existed because of a lot of men wearing fur hats, carrying burpguns. Unless, that is, you think the KPD would have won a free election, or been swept to power in a proletarian revolution in East Germany in, say, 1946 without the Soviet presence? No, I thought not. Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We do not live in a time of scarcity. The major problem capitalism has is overproduction (what some call underconsumption, which is a different side of the same coin). This is not a wacky left-wing theory, pretty much everyone agrees with this as it is so blindingly obvious, although the *causes* are disputed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Jack, what's your take on when this economy is going to turn around?

WELCH: I think that you have a telecom shut down, you have a high tech slowdown, you have a lot of capacity. So you got weak pricing power.... You?ve got globalization. You've got global capacity everywhere...There are plants all over China that just built 20 million things that are coming in to this or that, so pricing pressure is what we're facing. The reason why jobs are tough is not volume. The reason why jobs are tough is there's no profitability.

luke} A lot of people think that human nature is inherantly greedy and that is the main arguement that communism can't work. i disagree, human nature can change. i refuse to believe that the British binge drinking or the US gun crime cultures are there forever and cannot change. Lenin turned the entire russian anti-semitic attitudes around in a few short revolutionary years, unfortunately Stalin reverted to it back.

-- former GE CEO Jack Welch on Hardball[15]

The economists' notion of scarcity has nothing to do one way or another with the sort of over-production that Welch was talking about there. Your confusion is also indicated by the phrase "time of scarcity". Nobody maintains that the early 21st century is uniquely a time of scarcity -- the point rather, is that every time has been a time of scarcity, because demands are capable of infinite expansion, supplies are not. --68.9.148.204 16:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the italicised section in the passage below:

Objectivists and other laissez-faire capitalists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature". More specifically they make the claim that communism denies individuals the means necessary for their survival. So from an objectivist perspective the concept of "human nature" does not refer to a persistent attribute of human psychology but rather a very real physical necessity. It comes from the belief that a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes. And if the fruits of his labour are taken from him against his will, he will have no incentive to work. Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, mass behavior will change accordingly.

I have an idea of the point that someone is trying to make here, but it doesn't come over well or NPOV. The idea that a worker can enjoy the profit from his hard work in a given capitalist relations of production is strongly libertarian POV. To say simply that a worker should enjoy those fruits isn't an objection to communism, but rather exactly what communists argue (see Labour theory of value. This contribution also mixes up communism as a future system of global common ownership with communism as the system implemented by self-declared communist parties. And yes, of course you can argue that they end up the same in the end, but others can argue the opposite... The addition also doesn't segue into the rest of the paragraph that was there to begin with. I wasn't able to work out a way of rephrasing the point properly in a way that avoided these problems, so have removed the section for now. Mattley 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's very bad to remove the whole thing before discussing it. Sure, the paragraph was pretty badly written. But the criticism it makes is valid, and is indeed often made. What you claim is "libertarian POV" is actually a pretty widely held view, usually called meritocracy. It argues that those that work harder get a higher salary. This is not at all the Communist point of view. You can argue one is better than the other, but it is POV to remove a valid and widely claimed criticism. Luis rib 19:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib, I am sorry you think we should allow badly written, ambiguous and POV statements to remain in articles whilst we try to work out exactly what the anonymous contributor meant to say. I take the opposite view. As I said, I wasn't able to work out a way of rephrasing it appropriately, but I did take the trouble to explain at some length what I thought was wrong with it for the benefit of anyone who might want to correct those failings and restore the comment in some other form. Perfectly reasonable behaviour, I would think. Read back over the above. The part I object to as reflecting a libertarian POV is the part that states that this particular criticism 'comes from the belief that a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes'. Since objectivists argue for capitalist relations of production, this statement effectively endorses the view that it is possible for workers to enjoy the fruits of their labour within capitalism and rejects a different and opposite view, embodied in the Labour theory of value, which has it that capitalism is based on not returning to workers the full value of their labour. I never argued that the former POV was not widely held, but rather that it is POV. We are endorsing a particular POV there. To be NPOV that comment would need to be restated in order to make it apparent that it was a POV that was being reflected, rather than simply a statement of fact. But the problems with the above contribution go beyond that, and beyond the issues I noted in my earlier contribution. Even if it were established that the statement that 'a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes' was a meritocratic argument, even if it were identified as a particular POV, it would still be an arguement that surely did not apply exclusively to communism but to any society that practised progressive taxation. What about this comment 'they make the claim that communism denies individuals the means necessary for their survival.' What? How does it do that? Where do they claim this and why? And this one: 'the concept of "human nature" does not refer to a persistent attribute of human psychology but rather a very real physical necessity.' What on earth does that mean? It isn't at all obvious from the comment itself. So, given all of that, I'm not making any apologies for removing the passages in question. Mattley 20:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand your reasons better now. I tried to change the human nature part a bit. Each paragraph shows both sides' views now. Also added meritocracy, including your comment that taxation could also achieve it (although I personnally don't believe it). I think it's more NPOV now, but feel free to change stuff. I also deleted the second part of the violence section, which was a critique on capitalism and had nothing to do with communism. It should be added to the capitalism page. Luis rib 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

communism and economics

The basic criticism that it would be impossible to plan a communist society is fine. Someone wants it here, and it belongs here.

Nonetheless, it is replete with a total lack of understanding of Marxism, communism and so forth. These critics of communism know next-to-nothing about Marxism or communism, as I have stated before.

The second and third sentences are: "Theoretically, in a market system, scarce skills and resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands. Without an efficient market system, prices can send the wrong signals to consumers and planners, resulting in decisions that don't reflect the choices they would make if they knew the actual costs and competing demands for those resources."

First of all the idea that "scarce...resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands" pertains to the capitalist system, not the "market" system. If one looks at the life of a commodity as production -> exchange -> consumption, how is the exchange/market system of the USSR different than the US? A worker goes into a store and exchanges rubles (or dollars) for a loaf of bread. They are both market systems (of course, it should go without saying that the USSR socialist system would be different than a communist system).

Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Regards, the USSR, the difference is how the price is set, when prices are set artificially low resources are wasted, such as demand being so high that people have to spend considerable time in queues and the supply running out before all demand is satisfied. Another example was the price of clothing being set so low for new clothing that consumers used them as rags for cleaning autos or floors, since unimproved fabric was not any cheaper, and the clothing price did not reflect the resources used to improve the fabric.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being that "economics" is a word invented by right-leaning people in the field studying what everyone at one time called political economy, in a narrow sense economics is the idea that the study of (political) economy is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. However, economics is more often used in the broader sense. Probably the best question I could ask that would show your first sentence ("Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources") is incorrect is this - what was economics the study of prior to the publication of Gossen's work in 1854? Because absolutely no one was studying the "allocation of scarce resources" prior to that.

How is prices being set too low or too high different in the USSR and the US? I read the Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning and it said Wal-Mart had said it set prices too high in the last month. So setting the price too high in the US or USSR was the same thing (of course, the word price had slightly different meanings in different economies). No one would disagree that errors are made and capitalist or socialist systems sometimes misprice something. Another example would be a computer error pricing a gallon of milk at 10 cents in a supermarket. And socialist economies made errors like this as well. But I think we are talking about systematic problems during normal operations here, not the occasional error that pops up.

You neglect the point, the problems I pointed out were an imbalance of supply and demand because the communist system set the price with some other goal in mind than balancing the two. The pricing errors of Walmart resulted in lost business and oversupply for their prices, they responded by lowering the price and altering their supply. In a communist system which sets prices by the labor theory of value, (not that the USSR did that), there could be an imbalance between supply and demand even though the price was set correctly according to the theory, therefore there is no correction to be made, fixing the problem by changing the price would be switching to a different theory of value.--Silverback 12:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the communist point of view, there is no such thing as the setting of a price. A price is known the minute the producer is finished creating the commodity, the price is the number of homogeneous necessary labor hours are congealed in the commodity. You can't "mis-price" something systematically, since there is no such thing as mispricing, really. You can produce a "commodity" that no one wants however. There can't be an imbalance between supply and demand since every exchange is equal, there can only be commodities produced that no one wants - something that happens in capitalism as well.

In fact, this would be less of a problem in a socialist/communist economy. In a capitalist economy, capitalists compete to sell commodities which people don't want. It's like musical chairs - there are more commodities produced than buyers. This is not a problem in socialist and communist economies, nothing creates conditions which would lead to overproduction. Without this competition, there can be more cooperation and more planning coordinating production for exchange (or in communism production for need). Ruy Lopez 13:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I think you may be implying another point about how prices act as triggers. But you didn't say so, so I responded to what you said.

As I said earlier, I think a lot of people here know little of these subjects. The idea that economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources didn't even begin to arise until 1854. Prior to that, another theory reigned, and many people still believe the original theory, not the new STV/marginalist one. It seems to me that a lot of people here don't disagree with the original theory, they don't even know it existed or the history of the theories that they themselves are describing. I feel my knowledge of these fields is inadequate, but several Wikipedia contributors on this page and others seem to know less about this than what even I. Ruy Lopez 10:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, that this is how capitalist systems works is just of one various competing theories. Of course, it is the one capitalists within the capitalists system prefer (although not necessarily workers). The early bourgeois economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc. certainly did not believe this, and in fact shared Marx's view that value came from labor, that prices were determined by labor time and so forth. In fact, this was the accepted view when Marx began his studies and Marx agreed with it. There really was no argument against this until Hermann Heinrich Gossen published The Development of the Laws of Exchange among Men and of the Consequent Rules of Human Action, the ideas of which were fleshed out by the subjective theory of value school (marginalists). In fact, Marxism (and all of classical economics prior to HH Gossen and friends) is counterposed to this new theory of value.

Anyhow, that's just the second and third sentence. As I said, the basic ideas of this section are fine, the criticism that communism is not plannable, but STV (marginalists) ideas are just that - ideas, theories, not fact and should be marked as such. So I will be rewriting this section. Ruy Lopez 09:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you would explain how communist planning is done on a large scale without a state, how consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized, etc. I've no problem with you labeling the criticism as theory, albeit, a well developed theory that is able to explain a lot of the behavior of prices, consumers and suppliers as well as the problems and inefficiencies that sometimes occur. In your rewrite it would help if you could criticize communism from each of what you see as the competing theories of capitalism, so we can evaluate their perspectives. --Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marx said he did not write recipes for cookshops of the future, and communists generally do not spell out or dictate how things would be done in the future. However, in the past and present communists can point to existing models of say large scale planning, like the creation of the Linux operating system (the original author of which had a father who was a prominent communist). So-called primitive communist societies are other examples, as are things like Amish barn-raisings and so forth.

I've been more interested in what I would call misstatements about capitalism, or theories about capitalism which I do not share. Consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized in a capitalist economy as in a socialist economy - a product that can't be exchanged is not a commodity. Production decision makers in a capitalist economy and socialist economy would draw the same conclusions from the same data. STV/marginalism is certainly a well-developed theory. Anti-capitalists perceive many holes in it though. For example, the theory of marginal utility was developed to explain prices. Except prices are what display what the marginal utility of a commodity are. This is tautological - marginal utility explains prices which explain what the marginal utility of something is which is reflected in its price and so on and so forth. There are other holes in the theory which I won't go into at the moment, as they'd take some time to explain.

For example, from the anti-capitalist view, if inflation, the value of gold whatnot remains stable, then the price of a commodity is obvious. A capitalist should know exactly what the price of a commodity is upon production without any guesswork as it is very obvious. The *only* thing he doesn't know is if it will sell (e.g. be exchanged) or not. The idea that the commodity would be put on the market and the price raised or lowered "according to the market" is seen as laughable by anti-capitalists. It is a completely different theory about how production and markets work. Ruy Lopez 11:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the first paragraph is fairly straightforward, but the next three paragraphs having to do with the skyscraper are vague and make little sense. It is about how in capitalism, a skyscraper can be planned better than in communism. There are three paragraphs leading up to an argument and then - no argument. The last paragraph is leading up to this non-existent argument: "Critics contend that the implementation of communism in the sense described above would involve supplanting precisely these market and contract conditions that make planning possible. It would be planning instead of haggling, rather than planning within the context of haggling. That is what they contend is not practicable." OK, we have an example of a skyscraper, a description of how capitalists build a skyscraper and then a simple assertion that STVers don't think communists could build a skyscraper. The reason why is not given.

I know Amish people get together and do barn-raisings in basically a communist manner - each gives according to ability and each gets according to need. Of course, a skyscraper is more complex than a barn, but if one looks back 75 years, the tallest "skyscraper" in the world was less than 800 feet high, and most of what has enabled taller buildings to be built have been advances in engineering, and the factors leading to one wanting to go to the trouble of building such a large building. Beyond the architect, building a skyscraper is not that complex - you build a floor, then build another floor, and just keep going up. Nonetheless, all of this is more of an opinion than a reason. I see no argument made here. Ruy Lopez 10:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticism Comes From Critics

I'm responsible for the skyscraper example -- inspired by a dialogue with Mihnea on another article's talk page. The point, here, isn't that communists can't make one, but that the when and where of that resource allocation would be arbitrary and likely misdirected in the absense of market signals. (I would expect that the Amish anarcho-communist barn raisings respond to less formal signals than either a central planners' or a capitalistic skyscraper. The informality is affordable, because a barn is fairly easy to dismantle, the wood can be re-used elsewhere. Dismantling a skyscraper is a different matter.) Of course, communists might take the Stakhanovite approach -- "the more skyscrapers, the better, because it embodies our labor," -- and end up with empty buildings blotting out the sky and a shortage of steel, etc. that would have been very useful elsewhere. When you change the subject and start talking about diamond prices you've lost me. That's releant to articles about the labor theory of value, etc. -- here we're simply trying to state a common objection to communism to make this article complete.

Of course, planners might do a survey to find out whether there is enough demand for office space in a certain location to put a skyscraper there. But that concedes the point that its value comes from that demand, not from congealed labor -- and the survey data make more sense within a price system which includes comparative rents, etc., than in the absense of such signals anyway, which of course is the point. --Christofurio 16:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why is everyone saying I am changing the subject to diamonds, I am not the one who mentioned scarce resources.

I am glad of the point you made in the second paragraph as I have to explain less now. I would actually prefer to use the example of a cruise ship to a skyscraper as I feel it is simpler and less confusing, but I'll stick with the skyscraper example for now. Yes, lets say the planners would do a survey and see there was enough demand for office space. Let's even say that the skyscraper builders even got people to agree to pay them when the skyscraper was delivered. Of course the object has to be in demand, I've already said that. I don't think you understand LTV, this is in Capital Volume I, Chapter I. A commodity is not a commodity unless it is exchanged, and it won't be exchanged unless there is a demand for it. I can go into my room and paint a bad painting all day, and if no one wanted to buy it it would not be a commodity, it would just be something I worked on for myself (which no one wanted). Work people do for themselves, and not for exchange, is not a commodity. If I knit myself a sweater, I have not made a commodity as I've done it for my own use. If no one wants the skyscraper, it is not a commodity, it was something people built for fun or whatever. If people want it, then it is a commodity.

Communists think prices simply mask the homogeneous necessary labor time congealed in a commodity. So a price comparison in many ways is comparing a skyscraper or ship that takes 10,000 man-hours or person-hours to build, to a skyscraper or ship that takes 11,000 person-hours to build. The latter one would obviously be priced more. And if one is a William Levitt type who puts down buildings one after the other after the other, one has a pretty good idea what the homogenous necessary labor time to build such a building is ahead of time. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand the LTV very well. I don't think there's any reason to prove that to you, because the point here is simply to include a fair statement of a historically important objection to communism. You keep saying you don't want it to be here because it comes from the adversaries of communism. Of couse it does! And if you look at the "criticism" section of the article on anarcho-capitalism you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of that view. If you look at the "criticism" section of the articles on Darwinian evolution, you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of those views. And so forth. That is what a criticism section is for.

The claim that prices have information value concerns prices specifically. To the extent Marxists mean something else by "value" then "price," then they aren't really contradicting this point. Whatever you may want to say about value, price comes largely from market demand -- and that fact implies that it carries information about market demand. You say "communists think" differently. Okay. Most of the article is devoted to how communists think. Why should there not be, as there is elsewhere, a section for how the critics of communism think. Why is it an objection to any view on either side to say that communists and non-communists don't think the same way?

A few words more about skyscrapers. The problem I raised isn't the possibility that people would build a skyscraper for fun. It is the question of knowing whether the use of resources for this purpose rather than some other is optimal. You say nothing that gives me any reason to believe there is an alternative to a pricing system that would do this better. Any survey that would make any sense would be set against a background pricing system. Likewise with Levittown. The GIs came home to America after the war and wanted to get married, have kids, 'settle down' as the saying went. The building boom fed off such demand, and the housing prices that came about as a result thereof.

There was also statist interference in various ways. If we find Levittown to be a sub-optimal use of resources, I suggest that we might look at the planning implied in that interference. --Christofurio 13:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall objecting to the inclusion of any criticism except in the case where communism is confused with a socialist state. Other than that, I have simply pointed out criticisms were in the wrong sub-sections of the criticism section.

It wasn't, though. I was making various points in the human nature section because limits to rationality are as much an issue about human nature. Also, to the extent communism is supposed to be arrived at through a socialist route -- criticizing one is criticizing the other, and the distinction is pointless. Also, yopu've interpolated statements into every effort to state the Austrian criticism of communism in order to distract from any effort to get it fairly stated.

Suppose, for purposes of comparison, we were writing a passage about criticisms of Darwinism. I might write, "There are defenders of the views of Larmark, who believe that acquired characteristics can be inherited." Would it be fair for you to change that to this? "There are, though Darwinians disagree, defenders of the view of Larmark, with whom Darwinians disagree, who believe although Darwinians disagree that acquired characteristics can be inherited, although Darwinians disagree." Does that sound NPOV? AT what point are such continued interruptions of a point simply to state and restate and re-restate the mere fact of disagreement an unfair undermining of an effort to make a point that ought to be made? Frankly, I believe there is such a point and you have crossed it. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Price does not carry information about market demand, only exchange carries information about market demand. Price contains no information, the only case you can make for that is a price of zero contains information versus a non-zero price (from a 5 cent stick of gum to a million dollar house). Price is just a convulted method of expressing homoegenous necessary labor

time congealed in a commodity.

You are right in a sense about exchange, perhaps however, you were missing the implicit sense of prices as market prices set by exchanges in the market, not just the arbitrary price that someone might be asking or offering. The market price does carry information about demand. Of course. illiquid and non-commodity markets are less informative. But setting prices on labor alone will lead to very uneconomic decisions and lower levels of individual satisfaction, and less optimal macro-economic results in terms of gross product and efficiency. You would be wasting the medium of exchange (money) as a surrogate for measuring and assessing total resources, labor, and relative demand for them in informing individual distributed decision making. --Silverback 01:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not miss the idea that prices are set by exchange, I just disagree with it. The value of something is set the moment the commodity is finished being produced. The only question then is whether or not it is exchangable with something of equal value. If it's not, its not a commodity. It is just a completely different theory. In the Marxian theory, uneconomic decisions and sub-optimal macro-economic results come from a variety of sources, including capitalism's need to manufacture commodities which will not be exchangable. As I said, this actually isn't totally a Marxian theory, even GE CEO Jack Welch and many others have conceded this, or at least conceded all of the observations that would lead one to this conclusion. As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that? That's a very, very tenuous hypothesis as there is no way of measuring it, it is just based on a hypothesis from the conclusions of the other theory. And again, in your theory you claim prices somehow magically contain information on resources, labor and relative demand, but of course, you're unable to separate them into components since only the invisible hand of the marketplace knows. Marxian theory dispels with such mysticism - it deals just with what is known - will the commodity be exchangable? How much labor time went into creating the commodity? Natural resources have no value other than the labor-time congealed in them during extraction. I understand the STV/marginal theory, the older theory, which Marx subscribed to, simply disagrees with it. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't "understand" it if you need to characterize it as "magical". The market price of something is the price at whichit is being exchanged or exchangeable. You are making a pointless distinction. You seem to object to the significance of exchange prices on the grounds that they involve only a "binary decision" along the lines accept/reject. But ... so what? Digital computers work on the basis of binary on/off switches. Enough binary choices and one has a calculation -- and a result that carries information. What is "magical" about this? That you don't like it, I accept. But you make negative characterizations about its being "magic" and "mysticism" which turns out to be just new ways of restating the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the information-carrying significance of prices. Exchanged prices, of course. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as the use of resources, due to the nature of our economic system, the only way of knowing whether the use of the resource of labor-time is "optimal" or not is whether the commodity made with the labor-time is exchangable. I don't even think the word optimal is that great - optimal implies different levels of something whereas there is only one arbiter - exchange. An ounce of gold can be exchanged for 450 dollars, or 425 euros, but one is not more optimal than the other, they are all equivalent to one another. Ruy Lopez 01:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is the beauty of it, you don't have to rely on one arbiter, or even know whether it is optimal overall, in a market, individuals just need to perform their local optimizations according to their local goals, local information and the market information given by market prices. Perhaps there is some global optimum that is not achieved through such local optimization techniques, but at least whatever optimum that is achieved reflects the individuals values as expressed by their real willingness to exchange resources for them and not some enforced agreement or theorectical consensus where the individual did little more than express a preference in a poll.--Silverback 01:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about markets? What is the difference between the central committee of the CPSU setting grain production quotas and the management of ADM setting grain production quotas, the grain being made into a bread which goes to the market which is exchanged for dollars or rubles and then consumed? The only difference is in the method of production control - in capitalism, corporate bureaucrats make almost all production decisions, in USSR socialism, CPSU bureaucrats made almost all production decisions.

The USSR had markets too, where do you think workers went to buy bread, shirts and such things? The local market.

Interesting point. Workers didn't simply distribute bread to one another, they went to the market to buy it with rubles. Any justification for that practice is also a justification for the opening of stock and bond exchanges, too. --Christofurio 20:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as market information given by market prices, there is only a binary piece of information, which I wouldn't even call price, but whether a commodity was exchangable with a commodity of equal value.

Again, you seem to see some significance in what you do or don't want to "call" things. If you offer me a euro for this doohicky, and I agree, then we have established an exchange price for the doohicky. That is, as you say, a "binary piece of information." It is also a price. Prices = information. Why do you need to stir up so much confusion about that simple point? There might be a lot of reasons why we agreed on one euro. Some of them involve supply and some involve demand. Both sets of reasons involve other prices, and alternatives each of us had in other markets. The price of the doohicky is part of that broader system. This is not a theory, it is a simply fact.

Anyhow, as I said before, these are two different theories. At a certain point one reaches diminishing returns discussing this, we're both simply restating over and over the differences between the LTV and STV theories. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Diamonds are a switch of subject in the way that you invoked them, because you're simply changing the subject to LTV, which is another way of saying, "communists think differently from their critics." Yes -- in general anyone who believes in X thinks differently from the critics of X. So? In an article about Xism, one ought to include a fair statement of the difference, and not keep interrupting that statement with distractions such as ... "but of course, Xists disagree with these disagreements with X"! --Christofurio 14:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I found the switch to diamonds in the article particularly troubling, because they are not as scarce as believed, and take relatively little labor to produce (about $2 per carat) and have been artificially made scarce by a cartel. I'd like to find a different example of a utilitarian good that takes little labor to produce, but that consumes a scarce resource or material that has competing alternate uses, in order to illustrate how a labor theory of value price would lead to uneconomic decision making by consumers because the scarcity is not reflected in the price nor is the opportunity cost of alternate uses of the scarce material.--Silverback 17:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What "switch"? I have given an example of a scarce resource, (finely) cut large diamonds. What was the previous example this was switched from? What was the scarce resource example you are saying this was switched from because I don't see it. Finely cut diamonds with many carats are not $2 per carat, if you can buy at those prices please tell me because I'll be glaf to pay you double or triple. I am talking about the entire labor process, not just the guy who drives the truck to the jewelery store. I think diamonds are a good example but I'll entertain other ones (gold?) It's not for me to think up your examples for you. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism requires Atheism?

Isn't that true? I thought atheism was a common denominator. All this talk about early christian / amish / shaker communism-like activities makes my head spin. What's the deal? I thought religion was the opiate of the masses and we were to find our solace in praying to Marx or some such ;) Maybe Juche?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why should communism require atheism? Sure, the various Marxist strains have been pretty anti-clerical, but common ownership of the means of production is clearly a much older idea. Grant65 (Talk) 12:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK then, you are suggesting Communism can be divorced of Marx entirely? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism and communist experiments existed before Marx and, in fact, before Marx most experiments with communism were of a religious nature, particularly among Christians. AndyL 12:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well thats a bit of a hat flipper, since I favor communal sharing in a religious setting, and to some extent among other NGO's. But that doesn't make me a commie, does it? :S

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One might take you more seriously if you didnt' use words like "commie". I doubt anyone would take an editor of the Christinaity article very seriously if he or she kept referring to Christians as "Jesus freaks". Anyway, there's quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was a communist while there's absolutely no evidence that he was a capitalist;) See the stub Religious communism as well as Christian socialism and social gospel .AndyL 21:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus probably did participate in markets as a carpenter, and his objection to money changers had more to do with inappropriate location (the temple). Perhaps, he can serve as a good example of tolerance to other communists, since he eschewed a state christianity, not seeking to overthrow the Roman empire (render unto Caesar...) but advocating a more bottom up, personal morality approach. --Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All successful communist societies have had a religious basis. They have been of moderate size, from a few hundred to a few thousand members. Their religious basis has varied from radical interpretations of Christianity such as Oneida Community to quite fundamentalist and conservative such as the Shakers of Ann Lee, many were based on German pietism. These communities were very prosperous and were the envy of their less-favored neighbors [16]. Secular efforts to imitate them such as New Harmony were unsuccessful. Fred Bauder 14:17, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

why just start at a few hundred, the church itself has been described as a family of family and perhaps communism starts even smaller, "whenever three or more are gathered in his name". Variants of the altruism meme have some persuasive power, perhaps because of the altruism "gene". I still think they break down and become virulent with size, large churches become cults, adopt rigid virulence, or split. Perhaps communism requires community and community has its size limits.--Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Anthropologists postulate all societies were communist prior to about 4000 B.C.E. One thing which is self-apparent is that a society with no surplus must be communist. In other words, if I have to spend all day working just to feed myself, with nothing left over in surplus (or "profit"), I obviously live in a communist society. There is nothing left over to supply a slave-master, feudal lord or capitalist. Ruy Lopez 00:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, the first signs of surplus predate 4000 B.C.E., there is evidence of art, ornament, ritual, hierarchy and status, tools refined beyond mere satisficing in the archeological evidence of pre-history. Some of these signs of surplus have been proposed as defining of modern humans and are assumed exist, even before the better preserved technologies developed.--Silverback 00:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say 4000 BCE, I said about 4000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, societies shifted to agriculture from being more-or-less hunter-gatherers. This created a steady surplus, which allowed for the possibility of the existence of a class that did not need to do work. Ruy Lopez 12:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course communism doesn't require atheism. Intrigue 00:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruy didn't like my earlier changes to the "Other forms of communism" section, likely because it was POV. I have now corrected my wording and feel it is now NPOV. Wikipedia says that we should be writing NPOV material, that is, we should try to show different sides of an issue, not cover up opposing views. So Ruy, although you are a communist, you have to play by Wikipedia rules. You cannot cover up a belief held by many Christians that opposes the "Jesus was a communist" theory. Besides, you are not religious, how could you even try to say that this belief is unsound, illogical, or untrue? You may disagree with this position but you cannot (according to Wikipedia rules) revert my edits whenever you get a chance. Correct them if they seem too POV for you, but don't cover them up by reverting them every time. How about some dialogue before you revert them next time, huh? Think NPOV Ruy.Gaytan 22:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All Communist states (perhaps there are a few exceptions) have been atheist, yes. Recall Marx describing religion as a pointless distraction from "revolution." J. Parker Stone 01:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Communism is secular, not athiest, isn't it? That means it doesn't require religion, but its not actually opposed to it. -- Natalinasmpf 22:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Early communism may not have required atheism but modern theories, and certainly Marxism, do. While everyone knows Marx's "Reiligion is the opiate of the masses" quote (I'd love to hear what he'd think of TV today), the real opposition to religion comes from its class nature. All communists strive to create a classless society and the clergy have traditionally maintained their own customs, dress codes, ideals and organisations. They are arguably the most distinct of all classes GreatGodOm 29 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Ruy states: "As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that?"

The barometer is exchanges at prices that reflect supply and demand. If a person chooses to exchange x which he has for y in the market place, it is assumed in economics that he considers himself better off. The assumption may not be valid if the person is stupid or lacks information about the goods being exchanged and needs big brother to make the decisons for him to achieve happiness. But the core of economics gives the individual a little credit for having better information about his own preferences and what would satify him than others making the decison for him would. This is the reason both sides in an exchange usually say "thank you", otherwise they would be making the exchange, since if the goods were of equal value to each they would not make the exhange since the transaction cost would make them better off with their status quo. Furthermore, if a person has a medium of exchange like money and the market has many goods which he could exchange it for, his purchase of x instead of y or z, displays his preference and satisfies him more than making the other choices or no exchange at all. Perhaps you don't accept this economic assumption, it depends on whether you give individuals a little credit for being able to autonomously make their own decisions.

In a communist mass society, where prices are set by the labor theory of value, people will respond the same way to price signals, if those signals don't also reflect the rarity of materials or the demand of them for higher uses for example, the fact that silver's value should reflect its usefulness in electronics and photography, what is to prevent it from all being used up for silverware. When prices do reflect demand, silver will go to where it will produce the most economic value, because uses that produce more value will be able to bid more for it. Note that a market system, also values less utilitarian things, such as silverware, but those who value it, had to value it more than others, since they had to value it enough to bid it away from other uses. Perhaps a person is stupid for valuing a silver spoon more than a radio, or film, but that is the subjective nature of value. Markets and prices tend to allocate things to achieve greater overall satisfaction and efficiency, at least where, information costs, transaction costs and externalities are low.--Silverback 00:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

??? I don't know where to start with this! As a piece of 'market-advocacy' it is an interesting perspective, but it is not an NPOV treatment of the subject. Intrigue 15:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you might start by reading some micro-economics and price theory. Perhaps market economics is a POV subject, but even so, its theory of price, efficiency, and even problems have been fleshed out and practiced, much more than whatever the communist equivilent would be in a mass society that had a minimal or limited state. Until that is worked, perhaps communes had best interact with the world as basic survival units (BSUs) within existing free market societies. The can price their goods as they wish, and participate in markets exchanging with other BSUs such as individuals, families, state sanctioned limited liability corporations (they can't exist without state sanction, so should be thought of as part of the state), etc. Of course, when participating in the markets, they might find the prices quite different, but arbitragers will step in to reduce any inbalances.--Silverback 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view, but it's far from fact. Intrigue 03:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting response, I mentioned a theory from an established field and then I mention a proposal for how communes might co-exist and operate within a market economy and you respond with "it's far from fact". Frankly, you aren't passing the Turing Test.--Silverback 04:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because I am a PHP script. It's fine to quote this as a theory, and reference who thinks it, it is just that presenting it as uncontested fact is not ok. Beep beep. Intrigue 20:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a robustly confirmed theory, I suppose you think the theories of evolution and relativity should have to be presented the same way. It would be a herculean task to present all the supporters of these theories, and the list of contesters, would either be some crackpots, or some bleeding edge tweakers who really accept the theory as 90 % right.--Silverback 00:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, we do reference who proposes these theories, and they are a lot easier to agree on than theories about 'levels of individual satisfaction'. I certainly don't think that this theory has 90% acceptance among any reasonable group of people. I'm disturbed by your reluctance to reference it if it really is that mainstream, I'm certainly not asking for every proponent, just one or two notable ones. Intrigue 02:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are not many universities without microeconomics and price theory courses.--Silverback 02:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have no problems attributing this theory to some published authors. Intrigue 19:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I wouldn't. I would just pick a broadly distributed comprehensive text, such as Exchange and Production: Theory in Use by Alchian & Allen., that way I wouldn't have to make a Darwin or Dawkin's type of choice. --Silverback 12:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement - the theory will be referenced in the article as one advanced by these people (among others)? Intrigue 18:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, there is a lot of unreferenced material in the article. The culture on the this page seems to be to achieve balance in unreferenced material. In this type of culture, if certain info, is seriously challenged, as patently false or illogical or nonsensisical then there might be a specific request or challenge to document it. We give each other space here, people present their arguments and the reader has the burden of weighing whether they make sense or not. For instance, in the human nature section, there is a poor example of "altruistic" human behavior, the mother caring for the child, which is universal mammalian behavior and which evolutionary theory never had any problem explaining. Certain risky behaviors in situations where the genetic relationship was more distant or less certain is where the research was grappling with. And the idea the capitalism suppresses altruism and communism might release these bonds is speculation bordering on nonsense. However, I credit the reader with being able to detect what might have rigor behind it and what does not. Now if you want to go through the article with a fine tooth comb, and find things you can challenge with credible and on-point references you will be a formidible contributer and closer to passing the turing test. However, such rigor might disturb the communitarian peacefulness of the communism page. 8-) --Silverback 19:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unreferenced or not, I think everyone understands the idea of an open market. However, the unproven part is whether market price-setting actually does result in higher levels of individual satisfaction. Why would it not? Simply because market forces rely on relatively short-term vision and are not coherent. Large-scale long-term projects beneficial to all are rarely initiated by market entities. Nor does the general direction of the market necessarily provide greater individual satisfaction. One might consider that if the resources invested in the perfume market (for instance) were instead allocated to general healthcare and/or dietary balance, satisfaction may very well be increased even for those individuals who would ordinarily have purchased perfume.--Csmcsm 01:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It results in higher satisfaction than the consumer started off with, since the exchanges are voluntary. This is not being compared to what some omniscient planner would do assuming he knew what was really best, it is being compared to the same consumer exchanges where instead the prices are set on the labor theory of value, prices that don't reflect the scarcity of resources or the demand for higher uses. Under the labor theory of value, the price would be the same for steel spoons as for silver spoons if their manufacturing and supply processes required the same amount of labor. Scarce resource like silver or energy, and alternate demand from higher uses such as silver in electronics or photographic plates (perhaps for X-rays) is not reflected in the price and thus not in the consumer decision. The assumption is that the consumer would make better decisions with better information, admittedly this gives the consumer credit for a little intelligence and personal knowledge of his/her own values. You view perfume as a short term decision that ignores the long term posibilities, but it may the proper longer term choice in the consumer's value system, if for instance it enables the procurement of a more fertile mate with higher quality genes (someone really, really good looking?). You talk as if noone should ever accept risks for short term pleasure, as if, in a communist society, there would be no mountain climbing, sky diving, promiscuous sexuality, jaywalking, etc. because these don't achieve some ominiscient level of satisfaction or contribute to better health care.--Silverback 05:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not answering my points (as usual). Under a market system, resources are dictated mostly by selfish individuals with short-term goals. I've accepted that a communist nation is likely to set the wrong prices with regard to individual demand. But you're not considering the downside of the free-market system: which is that commodities that are inefficient at raising individual satisfaction in general can force the price of efficient commodities to increase. To follow your example, individual demand for decorative silverware will force the cost of X-Ray plates up in a free market, despite the fact that decorative silverware is grossly inefficient in comparison at raising individual satisfaction. Why is it that capitalist nations rely on communist structures to deliver basic public goods? --Csmcsm 20:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said, this is a theory, and should not be presented as fact, but as a theory advanced by some (perhaps many) people. I'm baffled as to why you would not want to reference this as the opinion of some notable politcal theorists. We don't need to argue about whether it is right or wrong, just say who claims it. Intrigue 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics, economics, and psychology

While what is referred to here on the wiki as communism isn't what I think of when I hear the word (I think of State Communism, i.e. pol pot & stalin), it does seem to be an important concept. This "communalism" is actually very agreeable to me as a spiritual person, I believe strongly in altruism. Unfortunately, these altruistic sociological theories only seem to work as far as the commune, and even then only when there is a solid religious foundation, and often a charismatic leader as well. Frankly, I think the people who desire to attempt Anarcho-Communism on a grand scale, or without a focus on God, have little comprehension of economics, psychology, sociology, or... history. They forget that the shiny idealism they believe so strongly in was once shared by those radicals who led to Stalin, Pol Pot, and every form of state communism. They forget that not everyone is altruistic, and indeed, that many are violent conquerors, or simply minor parasites, looking to revel in excess at the disadvantage of others. Every time I hear someone like Noam Chomsky speak, my mind wanders to visions of Black shirts beating political opponents and forcing them to drink castor oil, Snowball being chased from the farm by dogs, and Trotsky getting stabbed with an ice pick. No matter how pretty the utopia you envision, reality will always eventually step in. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? Read some more and you can dispel your own myths and misconceptions, if you wanna stop scaring yourself over something that isn't real.--Che y Marijuana 22:02, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Communist/Socialist, is that sure?

Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether European socialdemocracy, wich can be considered socialism even if of a moderate kind, does not involves public ownership of the means of production. And I don't think that there has been even one communist regime that has completely abolited private ownership, nor Karl Marx ever proposed to do that. Before the october revolution I think that the world communist was just a synonim of revolutionary socialist. After that it was used to refer to those socialists that had embrassed Lenin's ideas and that looked at the October Revolution as their political source of inspiration. juliet.p from Italy

Blaming the Resistance for a Revolution's Violence

This is almost a cartoonishly bad argument. Summarizing and paraphrasing just a bit, we're now saying, "some of communism's critics complainthat revolutions are bloody. To this communists reply: if the establishment didn't resist the revolution, it could all be done quickly and peacefully."

Yes, and if Haile Selassie had gone along, Mussolini's takeover of his country would have been bloodless, too. Does anybody defend the general principle that resistance as such is evil because it forces aggressors to get violent?

I agree that this passage should be deleted or rewritten at least. TDC 16:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Deng quote

I don't understand how the Deng quote needs contextualising, or how it is POV. We are reporting the judgement of many that China has made significantly pro-capitalist economic reforms; the quote is a support of this view. Don't interpret this as a challenge; I'm just genuinely confused, and don't understand the need for reversion. In the interests of accuracy, isn't the best approach to attempt to provide necessary contextualisation? Lacrimosus 07:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the quotation was, "Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious." Yet, the way it was inserted into the article seems to imply that Deng was dismissing communism and admitting the superiority of capitalism. Also, is his conception of what it means to be "rich" any different in China from the prevailing one in the West? One quotation, at any rate one that can be interpreted in multiple ways, does not illustrate a complicated phenomena that accompany China's development... This quotation adds nothing to the article other than confusion. (There are already links concerning Chinese economic reform that are sufficient.) Please remove it. 172 08:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he said it, at the time he was allowing market reforms, would indicate that he thought central planning, if not communism itself, was inhibiting wealth creation. The quote does not seem confuse any issues. If it seems a mixed message, perhaps that accurately reflects the state of affairs in the real world as well.--Silverback 02:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True, it is a complicated phenomenon, and it would be great if someone could sufficiently articulate its causes. I disagree with the reading that it involves Deng conceding to capitalism's superiority; I interpret it it as a change of views - it wouldn't be any more true to say that Mussolini by changing his opinions conceded to the superiority of fascism. Nevertheless, I will take out the quote, it'd still be nice if knowledgeable persons/people could talk more about the development of Maoist economics in China. Lacrimosus 23:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please no revert war, I've even included a Washington Times source for you. It's a perfectly apt and reasonable quote. 172, please leave your agenda behind. Libertas

Hammer & Sickle

The article itself seems to have become much better of late in respect of not identifying communism exclusively with Leninism and the former USSR, though there is some way to go in this respect. The use of the hammer and sickle logo and its description as 'the international symbol of communism' is an example. It wouldn't be regarded as such by left communists, council communists, most Trotskyites, Anarcho-communists and other advocates of a communist society (granted it would often depend on how far you were from 1917 when you asked them). The appearance of the hammer and sickle at the top of the banner advertising the communism series of articles is likewise inappropriate, given that that series contains many articles on schools of thought that were extremely critical of, if not hostile to, the USSR. Shall we consign it to the dustbin of history? Mattley 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explanations for the removal of Ultramarine's text

• Opponents of communism point out that the number of people killed are more than one hundred million. And that the methods used included concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides. [[17][18]
  • This is addresssed already in a way that avoids violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View with the following "...presiding over periods of repressive rule that saw tens of millions of casualties (see also Communist state)." In addition, you links have been added to the text. Further detail is found in the articles on the histories of the various Communist regimes and Communist state.
• And that they [concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides] took place in almost every communistic state.
  • This is a description of the Stalinist USSR, which saw a scale of violence and terror unseen in Communist regimes that came to power after the Second World War, such as Cuba.
• And in the Soviet Union continued even when that state was a superpower."[19]
  • The terror was abated significantly following Stalin's death, with Khrushchev's de-Stalinization. To make it clear that the USSR and other Communist governments were still nevertheless repressive single party regimes, but in a way that does not over-simplify history and violate NPOV, I added: "In the second half of the twentieth century, movements that threatened Communist Parties' monopoly on power, such Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring and China's Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, continued to be suppressed. Given these incidents and their often-violent histories, Communist Party-led regimes are often associated with human rights abuses, especially in the West."
• They also point out that every communistic state to date have been a dictatorship.
  • The text states, "Because they were governed by monopolistic parties..." Those who argue that every Communist regime has been a dictatorship base that on the fact that a single party has a monopoly on power, so this point is already addressed while following NPOV.
• Some supporters of communism claim that these states were in fact not communistic. Opponents claim that using the same argument, it is not possible to criticize capitalistic societies, as it can be claimed that apparently capitalistic states are in fact not capitalistic.
  • This is neither here nor there. They were Communist Party run states, and to dispute this would be more of a stretch than arguing that the world is flat. They were not "communistic" though (with a small "c"). Communism is a social system based on common ownership of all property, an ideal that Communist Party run regimes claim that they are attempting to realize, but one that never has been realized; and this cannot be disputed given every single definition of "communism" (small "c") available.

In all, note many of the recent additions under the "violence" section (formerly "revolutionary violence"-- broadened to include the entire span of their rule) that incorporate the topics that Ultramarine is attempting to bring to light. 172 00:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely people acknowledge that historically Communist states have held communist characteristics, even if they have not fulfilled Marx's dream of "true" communism (which, given the circumstances necessary, is utterly impossible) J. Parker Stone 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stick with standard definitions. Communism is based on common ownership of all property. Socialism is based on state ownership of the means of production. 172 03:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao. And that the deaths occured in almost all Communist states. However, the text is a marked ímprovement. Earler there were NO mention of the millions of killed, neither in this article or in that about Communist states. I will restore the last argument. The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property.Ultramarine 08:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property. This is covered elsewhere in the article. Keep in mind that there are also articles on Communist state, Marxism, and socialism. The Communism article is the on the ideology of Communism (large "C") and communism (small "c") as a social system; and it already veers way too off topic with discussions of socialism and the political history of various Communist regimes. Re: millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao Not in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev. Not in China under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao. Perhaps you are referring to Pol Pot's rule. 172 09:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read more history. Soviet Union [20] China[21] You seem to think that facts that contradict your view of the world are POV. But they are just facts, not opinions. Calling deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation for casualties is POV. I will change the statements so that the fact are clear. Do not censor them, even if you do not like the facts. Ultramarine 14:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not attribute this to POV. The reverts are more the result of problems posed by your non-native English, which is leaving this section a jumbled mess. The article goes into a sufficient level of detail mentioning tens of millions of casualties. The political histories of the relevant Communist regimes can be found in articles on the History of the Soviet Union and the History of the People's Republic of China. And, yes, it is POV to deny that the terror was abated significantly in the Soviet Union and China after the deaths of Stalin and Mao, respectively. 172 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then change the English. Do not censor the facts. You again insist that deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation are casualties? You have already demonstrated your lack of historic knowledge by claiming that millions did not continue to be killed after Stalin and Mao. Keep the facts so you and others can learn. Ultramarine 04:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a historian, so you can show me all the libertarian polemics and websites that you possibly can will not have shown me anything new to me. Writing NPOV is not just a matter of inserting "opponents say," "supporters say" anywhere you can possibly fit it but rather writing specifically and precisely. Internal exile and concentration camps in Siberia long predate the Soviet Union, as do mass starvations, so they are not unique to Communist rule. Thus, I will integrate your observations of famine and starvation into the article in way that maintains proper historical writing, specifically mentioning the Gulags and the famine coinciding with collectivization. 172 06:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very afraid to let others know that killing continued until the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, under Lenin, after Mao and in all Communist countries. Add that killings also took place in Russia before the revolution, but do not remove that they continued as long as the communists were in power. Why was there NO mention of the Gulags in the articles prior to this discussion, if you had knowledge of them? Ultramarine 07:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the finger-pointing. (Libertas?) I wrote only very small portions of the article; and this is not the article on the history of the soviet Union. 172 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made your point again in a clear, specific way. I added that the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, continued to be single party regimes that executed political opponents of the regime, though on a far smaller scale. 172 07:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Much better now. I disagree to "casualties". Which is " a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action". And if these states were not communist, then one can similarly claim that apparently capitalist states are not capitalist. Ultramarine 07:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I smell a Trot!

This article is filled with Trotskyist slants. Stalin suppressed ALL dissent? Find me a quote from Stalin where he actually says it is neccesary to "suppress all dissent". He may very well have done that, but that isn't part of Stalinism. In fact, there is no Stalinism. Stalinism is term invented by Trots for Marxism-Leninism. Trotskyism is a deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

• Just out of interest - are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party? Average Earthman 17:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"He may very well have done that, but that isn't part of Stalinism" Then, if Stalin did it, what is it part of? BTW, Trotsky said there was no such thing as "Trotskyism" and that the term was invented by Stalinists. Trotsky preferred the term "Bolshevik-Leninism". AndyL 17:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you smell the truth. Bah, what does that matter if it were all or some? The fact that Stalin did it, is still there. And, further up, there is no Stalinism and there is no Trotskyism. It's just invidual interpretions of how Communism should be, made of them...although I prefer the latter. However; The article is neutral and is just telling history how it happened as neutrally as possible. Although I agree and changed it from "all" to "most".--OleMurder 06:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that Trotsky would want the term "Bolshevik-Leninism" when he spent most of his life attacking the Bolsheviks and Lenin, and only joined the Bolsheviks in July of 1917 (three months before the revolution) and still spent most of his time attacking Lenin. The solution, IMO, is to not use the term "Stalinism" when writing articles about those who upheld Stalin, or to reference it in such way as to clarify the meaning. Same should be done for Trotskyites if they feel that the term "Troskyism" is incorrect. BTW, Stalin hardly crushed all dissedents. IMO, he was a little too friendly and a good purging before his death might have prevented revisonism and the eventual collapse of the USSR, and we would have a lot more hope for the future today. --Mista-X 16:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"there is no better Bolshevik" Lenin on Trotsky.

economic critique

Not going to go into too much detail here, since it has been well covered elsewhere, notably by Karl Marx... Here is the addition made by Luis

• According to critics, communists forget, however, that the production process requires more than just labour: machines (i.e. "capital"). These machines have a cost, which has to be included in the price of the produced good. Indeed, a T-shirt can nowadays be either produced with lots of labour (for instance in China) or with many machines (in Europe). Modern economic theory would imply that both T-shirts should have the same price (since they are essentially the same), no matter how much labour went into them.

Communists don't forget that capital makes up part of the cost of production of a commodity, though they do see capital as 'dead' or 'congealed' labour. There is no conflict between Marx and "Modern economic theory" on the point you claim. Yes, these T-shirts exchange at the same price despite having required different amounts of labour for their production because, in Marxian terms, their value is determined by the average amount of labour required for their production. There are plenty of valid criticisms that could be made of Marx, but this one is just based on a misapprehension I'm afraid. See Wages, Price and Profit or Wage Labour and Capital for more if you like. They explain the Labour theory of value very cogently and address the assumptions you are making. Mattley 19:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does the theory explain how the congealed labor in the capital equipment just happens to come out equal to the labor in the labor intensive process? That coincidence sounds too unlikely to be true. There wouldn't be much point to the machines if they didn't save net labor in the long run.--Silverback 10:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you're driving at in that first sentence there. It isn't a question of amounts of labour being equal - because it is not the amount of labour in a particular commodity but the average amount required. In general, that is the point of introducing machinery: it means that a capitalist is temporarily able to produce commodities more cheaply than competitors yet realise a greater profit because he would be producing below the socially necessary cost of production for said commodities. This competitive advantage, in a real-world situation, would be of very short-duration, since competitors would also increase their capital-intensity. Is this not covered at Labour theory of value or somewhere? As for centrally planned states etc, I don't know. They weren't 'socialist', and if they claimed to be putting 'Marxian economics' into practices they were even more fraudulent than I realised. Mattley 12:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got your point. I won't put it back. However, what about the bureaucracy part? That critique seems rather relevant to me - after all it does not only apply to centrally planned states, but to any organization that has become too big. Luis rib 22:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gift economy and anarchism

There's no mention of the concept of a gift economy in this article, which I find quite surprising, because the concepts are almost the same. I mean, they could be used to clear up a lot of things which would normally take a lot of things to say, or if the concept wasn't even mentioned, then oh the horror!

Also, I find the fact that this article seems to distinguish too much between anarchism and communism. Can we consider anarchism part of, a branch of communism, whereas Marxist-Leninism is the other main branch? -- Natalinasmpf 22:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried my best to rework the article, it needs ALOT of work. But at least now it mentions gift economies a few times.--Che y Marijuana 03:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the other concern is its elaboration of the idea of the gift economy's part in the movement in both the critique, and the response against it, and especially in the Stalinism vs Trotskyism area. -- Natalinasmpf 20:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyscraper example

Sorry if I seem annoying, but I find the skyscraper example rather bad. Maybe in the US skyscrapers are built entirely with private capital, but in other countries that does not seem to be the case. In the Gulf states skyscrapers are mostly built by state-owned companies. In Europe also the states have a lot of influence on skyscraper-building because of zoning laws, etc. Could the same point be made with another example? Luis rib 17:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggested links

The links which Ultramarine wants to insert are problematic for a number of reasons. Leaving aside the reliability of the sites in question for the time being, the intro to this article states that it is primarily about the theory of communism. It also states that For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state. This seems more than reasonable as a way of organising discussion of such an enormous topic. And since these links all discuss the abuses of Communist-Party regimes, they don't belong here. If we have all that stuff on the crimes of Communist regimes, then what is to stop someone adding links applauding Stalin's success in raising industrial production in the USSR etc. etc etc. It is off-topic. Why should they be here? Mattley 23:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An article about Nazism should have a short section about the human rights crimes. There can be a longer article also about these but they should not be censored in the main article. Furthermore, the real world failure of all attempts to implement Marx's ideas is extremely important for the theory of Communism in general. See my change of the Critique section Ultramarine 00:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Nazism article discusses only the theory, much like this one, with short links to pages with more detail. That's the way it should be. As for the "scholarly works" you're linking to, some in gif format, they are discredited and worthless. At least the cato institute article criticizing communism I added isn't hosted at geocities.--Che y Marijuana 02:18, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Nazism article has an section about Effects with ha short description. Please show evidence that the links are discredited. Many are written by respected academics and published in academic press. Cite your sources! Ultramarine 02:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MIM responds to Black Book of Communism editor Mark Kramer. The editor himself admits accidentally using a percentage sign instead of per thousand sign, multiplying by 10 the numbers in one section. It's not exactly the most trustworthy source.--Che y Marijuana 03:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

As for the Nazism article, there is a small paragraph on it, but it makes no sense to drag it all into here. If we can't do it justice on this page, as it is a big page, it should be placed almost entirely on the other page.--Che y Marijuana 03:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

An error do not certainly discredit an entire book. And that is just one of many books. I will add a partial reference list. Ultramarine 03:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from 1.6, to 16 percent of the chinese population, that's a huge difference. And my point is the whole book is disputed, there's far more in it that has been discredited, I'll track it down for you. As for the other links, none of them are even worth addressing, anyone who takes one look at them would understand. You list a site hosted on Angelfire! Scholarly my ass. Don't reinsert these, let's discuss a list of useful links here. I tried to find some, all I could come up with was the cato thing, but the black book and these other links are CRAP.--Che y Marijuana 03:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cite your sources. What is wrong with other books? Most of them are published by academic press, many by respected researchers. Again, if you have something against this academic reserach, cite your sources. I will skip the link for now and only add back the academic research. Ultramarine 03:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concenrning The Black Book of Communism, the questions about its validity are addressed on its own page. The book is considered to be relevant by many people (incl., for instance, the French right-wing philosopher J-F Revel, in case you want an example). Also, it is quite well-known among the general public as being a book against communism. I don't see a problem in mentioning in here; any criticism of it should move to its own page. Luis rib 09:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the references. We already have a section which introduces the topic of human rights abuses by Communist states and refers the reader to the article on Communist states. Given that this article itself is supposed to be primarily about communism as a theory and future society, that seems more than fair to me. The introduction of these links and/or websites would

1) create an imbalanced article including too much material which is not wihin its scope.

2) endorse several definite points of view, namely that alleged communist states were indeed communist, that the abuses they committed stemmed directly from communist theory, and that any future attempt to bring about a communism society would inevitably lead to a repeat of such abuses.

We don't want a whole bunch of POV now, do we? Mattley 13:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV

My last edit removed some blantant POV from the section on "Communist states." 'Executions, labor camps with high mortality, and mass starvations' have taken place in capitalist societies, but what would happen if one were to put the following in the article on capitalism:

Numerous human rights violations have been attributed to capitalist regimes. These include: executions, labor camps with high mortality, mass starvations caused deliberately and by mismanagement, and ethnic genocides. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is highly disputed; depending on the cited historical sources and on the answer to the question "what kinds of deaths can be attributed to the socio-economic system of capitalist or to the government supporting the capitalist system?", the death toll is perhaps as high as the hundreds of millions. Other widespread accusations concern the lack of freedom of speech in capitalist countries, religious and ethnic persecutions, destruction of historical and cultural heritages, environmental disasters, lack of democracy, restriction of emigration, personality cults, and inherited dictatorship, particularly under those of the fascist variety.

I hope that no one will attempt to put the above in the article on capitalism. That would be absurd-- just as absurd as allowing the content that I'd removed from the article to stay up... If people are interested in detailing a critique of Communist ideology based on the actions of Communist regimes, they will have to cite the research of authortative sources laying out a relationship between Communist ideology and the actions of political authorities in cases such as Stalinist Russia, Communist China, et. al. JMaxwell 21:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the following passage, I removed the bit in italics

Finally, some claim that wars, hunger and lack of elementary medical care, causing the deaths of millions, are the results of capitalist relations of production, making capitalism the single most violent socio-economic system in history. This view, however, is widely criticised, since most wars, famines or epidemics happened in countries that were not really capitalist.

Don't think anyone could really argue that war has not been a characteristic of world capitalism: think world wars one and two for a start, then add Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. As for famine and epidemics, note that this is not what the earlier section refers to. It talks about hunger and lack of elementary medical care, both widespread and devastating in the developing world despite the ability of the world to produce more than enough to supply food and medical care. Lest we are tempted to argue that such countries are not capitalist remember that this too is not exactly what the earlier section alleges. The claim is more precisely that they are the results of capitalist relations of production, ie, the fact that production is carried on for profit rather than to meet human needs. Mattley 23:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Korea was a capitalist war??? North Korea invaded the South! Algeria? Was a colonial war. Afghanistan? I remember some soviet invasion at some point... WWI and WWII? Please! Do not confuse imperialism (WWI) and Nazism (WWII) with capitalism! Your claim that capitalism is associated with war is a complete fallacy. Which wars were started by Sweden? By the Netherlands? By Canada?

As for the rest of your comment: the wide-spread poverty of the developing world, whose consequence is hunger and lack of medical care (among many other problems), is certainly not due to capitalism in America and Europe. How come Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and now China, managed to overcome poverty, hunger and other problems? Only because they embraced capitalism. What you do not understand is that capitalism can only produce profits because it meets human needs (i.e. because people buy what they think they need). The problem in Africa, for instance, is that international trade is often very reduced because of high import duties (preventing people from buying cereals and food in case there is a drought, for instance). Luis rib 23:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place in other talk pages, and there's no need to repeat it here. People looking for information on communism SHOULD find some reference to what happened in countries that officially claimed to be communist. The facts are not in dispute, in any case (there's just some argument on the precise number of deaths, etc.). Your comparison with capitalism is spurious, since capitalism is not as wide-spread as you claim. Certainly not all non-communist states are capitalist. Indeed, most African countries were not capitalist, and neither was Latin America (with the possible exception of Chile). Luis rib 23:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that capitalism is associated with war is a complete fallacy. I am not making this claim. My point is that all 'executions, labor camps with high mortality, and mass starvations' occurred throughout history in societies where private ownership of the means of production dominated economic output. However, whether or not there was a relationship to capitalism and these occurrences is not for Wikipedia to decide, due to the NPOV policy; instead, this is a matter to be taken up in social science academic journals. In the same vein, Wikipedia cannot assert a relationship between every occurrence under Communist regimes and Communist ideology... If you want to cite authoritative source making this claim, feel free to do so. At the same time, this claim must be balanced with other POVs. JMaxwell 01:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible crimes in Capitalist states is not the issue here here. It is human rights violations in the states rules by Communist states. For extensive academic references, Communist states. Please stop this historical revisionism. Ultramarine 03:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding my point. I brought up capitalism as an example in order to demostrate the shortcomings of the approach taken in the writing of the pargraph I'm calling into question. It is POV (and original research) to attribute every occurrence in a Communist regime to Communism independent of other historical factors, just as it is POV and original research to attribute every occurrence in a society where private ownership of capital generates the bulk of economic output to capitalism... However, you may be able to incorporate these observations about history of Communist regimes if you (1) do a better job presenting contending POVs and contextualizing the history and (2) citing authoritative research not just recording these occurrences under Communism but also stating inferences about the relationship between these occurrences and Communism. JMaxwell 03:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have given my academic references. Give your own if you think they are wrong.

As stated in the rewritten text, if one cannot critcze Communism for real-world consequences, then one cannot critcze capitalist states for real-world consequences. So I could remove all statistcs about wealth inequality in Capitalist states and state that this has nothing to with the ideal Capitalist society and thus should not be in an article about capitalism. Ultramarine 03:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have cited some sources (all anticommunist polemics) claiming that certain things occurred under communist regimes, but the paragraph that I removed does not make it clear what these alleged occurrences had to do with Communism. Again, by your reasoning, someone should be able to add the following to the article on capitalism:

Numerous human rights violations have been attributed to capitalist regimes. These include: executions, labor camps with high mortality, mass starvations caused deliberately and by mismanagement, and ethnic genocides. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is highly disputed; depending on the cited historical sources and on the answer to the question "what kinds of deaths can be attributed to the socio-economic system of capitalist or to the government supporting the capitalist system?", the death toll is perhaps as high as the hundreds of millions. Other widespread accusations concern the lack of freedom of speech in capitalist countries, religious and ethnic persecutions, destruction of historical and cultural heritages, environmental disasters, lack of democracy, restriction of emigration, personality cults, and inherited dictatorship, particularly under those of the fascist variety.

JMaxwell 03:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not cite some sources. I cite extensive adademic research. If you want to criticze capitalism, find the academic references and add that to the capitalism article. Do not censor this article. Ultramarine 04:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(1) Mentioning Rummel and the Black Book of Communism? You'd get flunked out of any intro-level college course by calling that "extensive adademic research." If that's considered high standards of "extensive adademic research," we might as well let someone start loading the article on capitalism with crap from Noam Chomsky and calling that the final word on the subject. (I'm not saying that the views of those authors do not belong in this article, just that they cannot be the final word on the subject given the NPOV policy.) (2) In case you ignored my comments earlier, my point is not to criticize capitalism but rather use the comparision as a teaching devise of sorts to illustrate the inherent problems in the approach taken in the pargraph that I am removing by applying it to another topic. (3) Please stop making personal attacks. Accusing someone of trying to 'censor' the article or engaging in 'historical revisionism' go against the norms of civility in online community projects. Please see Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. JMaxwell 04:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I state many other sources besside Rummel and the Black book. If you want to criticze them, give academic references and not hearsay. If you cannot provide the academic references, you are censoring. Ultramarine 04:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a diversion. One does not have to make this into a debate forum in order to recognize that authors like Rummel are not the final word on the subject... You directed me earlier to the article on the Black Book of Communism, but that article contains references to research incorporating other factors for explaining the same observed phenomena; the paragraph that I'd removed from this article lacks this balance, and thus ought to be removed on grounds of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. JMaxwell 04:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Communist states:

References on human rights violations by Communist states

• Becker, Jasper (1998) Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine'.' Owl Books. ISBN: 0805056688.
• Conquest, Robert (1991) The Great Terror: A Reassessment Oxford University Press ISBN: 0195071328.
• Conquest, Robert (1987) The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195051807.
• Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0674076087.
• Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992 Indiana University Press. ISBN: 0253207568.
• Jackson, Karl D. (1992) Cambodia, 1975-1978 Princeton University Press ISBN: 069102541X.
• Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982 University of California Press. ISBN: 0520208935.
• Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series) Yale University Pres. ISBN: 0300092849.
• Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) The Great North Korean Famine. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN: 1929223331.
• Nghia M. Vo (2004) The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam McFarland & Company ISBN: 0786417145.
• Pipes, Richard (1995) Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. Vintage. ISBN: 0679761845.
• Rummel, R.J. (1997). Death by Government. Transaction Publishers. ISBN: 1560009276.
• Rummel, R.J. (1996). Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers ISBN: 1560008873.
• Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. Lit Verlag ISBN: 3825840107.
• Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN: 0271019611
• Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN: 0300103220. Ultramarine 04:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. We're all familiar with Rummel, Conquest, Pipes, and the bulk of these authors. Copying and pasting this list, however, is not a license to write a biased diatribe blaming everything occurring under Communist regimes on Communism independent of other factors, such as the social problems inherited from the old regimes... Incidentally, if a Marxist decided to apply your reasoning to the capitalism article, he could just as easily generate a list of Marxist academics who relate capitalism to the great power rivalries leading up to the First World War, the Second World War, and the rise of fascism, and then in turn proceed to blame all the horrors and atrocities of the interwar era on capitalism. JMaxwell 04:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please write this ñew section in the capitalism article and support it with academic references. It would start an interesting debate. But do not censor the academic research regarding Communist states. You have not given a single academic reference that finds an error in current text. Ultramarine 04:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point that I am making does not require the presentation of extensive research. It should be readily apparent to just about anyone who passed high school history. (World History is a requirement in just about every American high school.) All of those watching this article should be expected to have enough of a grounding in the past to be aware of the fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred in noncommunist regimes, and were indeed all too common in both China and Russia before their respective Communist takeovers. That's the only premise of my argument that I am responsible for establishing. With that in mind, your work should be more contextualized and balanced by other possible explanatory variables, like the fact that both China and Russia were engulfed by utter chaos and anarchy before the Communists even came to power. (One would have to be pretty obtuse to expect any group forcibly establishing a new regime to restore order without a considerable amount of bloodshed.) JMaxwell 05:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add your observations, with academic references. The facts are clear and should not be censored. They showed that horrendous human rights violations took place in most or all of the states ruled by Communist parties. If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. For now, you have only made many claims without a single reference as support. Please read cite your sources and no original research. Ultramarine 09:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then you can read about the fallacy of the hasty generalization. I thought that you would be intelligent enough to realize that the paragraph was nothing more than a huge sweeping generalization without having to name-drop, but since you would rather continue playing games instead of respecting the NPOV policy, I can join you in this pissing contest and start listing off academics myself. For starters, Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy relates the class structure of the old regimes the political development of Communist regimes. Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions relates class and state structures of the old regime to political development. I cite these two because their works are the basis of established literature on this subject in comparative politics; if you are interested in other writers in this field, you can go ahead and do a search on Jstor yourself. JMaxwell 09:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. I am not setting out to do either of these things. This is a staw man and yet another diversion on your part. The problem is that you are refusing to accept any other possible explanation of these occurrences except Communism, which makes little sense when you consider the basic fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred at times in noncommunist regimes, and, moreover, took place at times in both Russia and China before the Communists came along. This is an example of how tricky it is to argue that these poltical patterns are caused by an economic system or an ideology, and why these explantions are for the realm of scholarly journals, not Wikipedia. JMaxwell 09:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You understate the magnitude of the situation, the countries themselves were slave labor camps since they shot people trying to escape, there is film footage of it happening for badness sakes! Denial of the right emigrate is perhaps the most basic human rights violation (for those allowed to live), we could perhaps tolerate some diversity in country oppressiveness if people were living there were doing so voluntarily, but denial of the right to emigrate trumps any apologia these regimes might offer for the measures they use.--Silverback 10:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) Are you denying that these crimes took place? Then give academic references 2) Are you saying that similar crimes took place in Capitalist countries? Then give references and write something in the Capitalism article. 3) Are you saying that all the crimes took place during the revolution and that there were no Gulags, terror or mass starvations long after this? Then please give references. You seem to think that crimes can be excused if there has been similar crimes before which is an absurd idea. It is like justifying Hitler's genocides by stating that the German empire earlier committed genocides in Africa. Ultramarine 11:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you speak English? How many times do you have to make the same accusations and say the same things over and over again? Reread what I wrote. If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. I am not setting out to do either of these things. This is a staw man and yet another diversion on your part. The problem is that you are refusing to accept any other possible explanation of these occurrences except Communism, which makes little sense when you consider the basic fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred at times in noncommunist regimes, and, moreover, took place at times in both Russia and China before the Communists came along.... You want to claim that these things were caused only by Communism, independent of other factors, when in reality hisotry was more complex. JMaxwell 20:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring my questions and statements in more recent replies. I will go all the way to arbitration if there is any attempt at censorship of very well-documented historical facts. Ultramarine 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You keep on turn my statements into strawmen, attributing motives to me that I'm not working for. You asked for sources, and I gave them to you. There is indeed writing on China and Russia that does not attribute all the problems in those two countries to Communist boogymen... Go ahead and take this to arbitration. Your work is POV and you are acting unreasonable. I'm sure that will be evident to any less fanatical person. JMaxwell 21:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of your sources explain why the human rights violations by Communist states should be censored from the article. Add to the text that there is "writing on China and Russia that does not attribute all the problems in those two countries to Communist boogymen". This is no excuse for excluding the very well-documented historical research. Should the article about Nazism censor the human rights crimes because there are some books which have a different opinion? Ultramarine 21:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Damn you're being really dense. My point isn't to keep information out, just to balance it with more information, or get rid of it if the writers can manage to present it within the framework of NPOV. The problem is not necessarily what you are observing, but the lack of attention to other areas of academic literature when it comes to causation. JMaxwell 21:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then add the information, as I have repeatedly stated, with references. Ultramarine 21:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear JMaxwell. Since you ask in how far theoretical Communism is responsible for the crimes attributed to Communism, here's an explanation (documented in The Black Book, among many other sources). A) Certainly labour camps, famines, etc. existed before communism. B)In the case of labour camps, these persisted for the simple reason that the general population was opposed to the government and the policies it implemented (e.g. collectivization of land). C) Famines were directly linked to Communist policies. In China's case, the Black Book explains very well how the economic measures of the Great Leap Forward were the prîncipal reason of the famine (e.g. the prohibition to trade grain between provinces, the collectivization of land, the central planification, the reduced labour force following the forced move to industrial production, etc.). This is different from previous famines that took place before communism, and were due to indifference from the central powers. D) In the case of Cambodia, the genocide was directly the consequence of Pol Pot's interpretation of Communism (i.e. an agricultural communism, without money, industry, or services, and where individualism was suppressed to the point of prohibiting glasses), which he tried to preserve by assassinating or starving those that might have seen the flaws in his reasoning. E) You may argue that all these points are irrelevant since they don't reflect real (utopic) communism). This point can be countered by noticing that 1- utopic free market capitalism doesn't exist either; 2- until 1989, all communist parties, and most intellectuals that supported marxism, agreed that the Soviet Union and other countries were on the way of establishing communism; 3- from an economic point of view, many measures typically identified with communism were indeed implemented by Communist countries, with the consequences we know. Luis rib 21:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Save your breath. I have heard all of these explanations many times before. I am not saying that I necessarily disagree with them, but that the article should not be based on the above POV premises or other POV premises that recognize that every social and economic structure that has ever developed in China or Russia has had its inherent problems. JMaxwell 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have kept this on my watchlist, although I had taken a vacation from it for various reasons. The article seems somewhat improved; there is at least brief mention of the horrendous consequences of the Communist adventure. This introduction:

":This article is about communism as a form of society built around a gift economy, as an ideology advocating that form of society, and as a popular movement. For issues regarding the organization of the communist movement, see the Communist party article. For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state.

represents, however, an attempt to distance the article from the realities of practical communism as we have known it in our lifetime and especially from the realities of being involved in the movement.

One note: This article is not about capitalism and the problems capitalism has. That material needs to go in the article, capitalism. Yet, the communist movement cannot be considered apart from capitalism as much of its energy comes from the consequences of capitalist organization of the economy. Fred Bauder 14:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

No, but neither is the capitalist article going to be mainly about the problems it has. The communism article is good for criticising capitalism from the perspective of a communist economic system. And cannot considered apart? You're basically saying that the immune system really shouldn't be considered apart from viruses, bacteria and cancer cells because much of the "energy" and evolutionary drive to develop an immune system comes from the consequences of pathogen organisation in the body? -- Natalinasmpf 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Utopian Communism

Whether we have an article utopian communism or not, that is where this sort of stuff belongs: "...communism itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be related to the actions of 20th century states." Essentially this is propaganda and is, in fact, a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This line served its purpose for bait and switch, but there was no sign any actual Communist movement took it seriously. Our article can include such theories but the bulk of it needs to refer to ideologies which existed or events which occured. Fred Bauder 16:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dialogue

Sorry, this is not propaganda. This is the proposed ideology which drove other models forward, but the actual implementation became different. This is why there is a huge conflict between anarcho-communists and Marxists. Communism's original goal is utopia - "utopian communism" is redundant. Stalinism, in etmylogical terms, is not communism, but a derivant of it. This leads to many arguments. The collection of statements may be POV, but the entire NPOV policy is to represent all sides and arguments to give the reader an informed view. I reject the idea that it is a violation. -- Natalinasmpf 18:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same argument can be made about capitalism then. Luis rib 20:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you see the Marxist line is that communism isn't utopian at all, because it is a real and existing tendency within capitalism. It isn't simply 'an idea' or an idealised future society precisely because it is grounded in and will emerge from the conditions of the present society, viz the struggle between the working class and capital. I didn't explain that very well I'm afraid, but Marx goes into some detail on the point in the Manifesto of the Communist Party where he contrasts communism with the Utopian Socialism of various French thinkers, and Robert Owen as well I think. I point this out for the sake of information mainly. Mattley 22:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same argument cannot be made about capitalism, as some starving, and some living in opulance, with no guilty consciences, is the ideal. "Greed is good" remember?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Of course the same argument can be made about capitalism. The reason why capitalism has certain "drawbacks" is because of externalities, interference of the state, lack of competition, lack of information by consumers, ..... One could go on. Perfect capitalism does not exist. But, like Marx, theoreticians have argued that if it existed, those problems would all be overcome. Of course, it is utopian. But it is the same kind of argumentation

With respect to the "greed is good" argument, communism also makes assumptions that are, at best, questionable. Why, for instance, should people that work harder, or that spend a few years at university, be happy with equivalent salaries to people who don't and who stop after primary school? Why, actually, would anyone even try to work harder in those circumstances? Luis rib 22:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, wages are irrelevant, there is no currency and there are no wages, it's a gift economy. Take for example file-sharing networks, vast gift economies in implementation, there's very few on them who give a damn how many songs the person downloading from them has shared. Anyways, as to "greed is good", I'm not criticizing it, I'm saying that Capitalist ideology in and of itself encourages profit as the goal to the exclusion of all others. It encourages a system where some fall to the bottom, and some rise to the top, that's not an externality, that is the basis of capitalism. In fact, it only gets worse as we push in the direction of less government intervention, as hospitals and schools become privatized and the poor are left to rot without any services.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning gift economy: how is it supposed to work on a national scale? If I want a pineapple, how will I get it in a gift economy? Do I have to go to eBay to see who is willing to give away a pineapple? Also, how does a gift economy encourage people to work and to give their best? They are not sure anyone will give them anything afterwards... Concerning capitalism and greed: the idea is that in "perfect capitalism" those that fall to the bottom work less than those that rise to the top. But "perfect capitalism" would assume that everyone has the same opportunities from the start - which is clearly not the case. Indeed, poverty itself is a reason why many people have too few alternatives. That's why any moderate capitalist will argue that the state should help the poor by providing help for better education and access to free (or at least cheap) medical services. In utopian perfect capitalism, those aids would not be necessary since no-one would be disadvantaged from the start (I know, it's a circular argument - that's why it is an utopy). Since utopias don't exist, some level of state intervention is necessary - the question is then to find the right level. BTW, getting back to Ayn Rand, that's why I said she's an extremist - she's arguing for something that cannot exist in this world. Luis rib 23:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, gift economies have been put into practice for periods of time, spain during the civil war/revolution for example, and have worked. Basically, it cannot work in a state system, it requires local, direct democratic, federated collectives. Think of the collective as a small polis, where people know each other, or at least well enough that they would notice if someone was being a total parasite. I'm the bartender, you're the guy who works at the automobile plant syndicate, and ultramarine is the baker. Or at least he's supposed to be. You come to me and ask for a beer, I know you work at the plant and the syndicate gives away its cars for free, so I give it to you. Ultramarine comes to me and asks for beer. But I know he hasn't been giving food for months, and lied to get himself an extra car. So I don't give him jack, cause everyone's been lenient and now it's time to put the foot down. I decide I'll bring it up at the next general assembly in the collective, and everyone confronts him about it. Of course, this can be aided by the use of technology, perhaps smart cards to track statistics of production and consumption, and the ratios, both at an international level and a personal level. Perhaps an automated process that would notify your neighbours if those stats reached a certain ratio? A kind of red flag telling them you've been swindling, and letting them confront you or redicule you for it? Who knows. Guessing how it would work is pointless, but it's not complicated really. -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 23:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have a much better idea. I and some other progressive individuals decide to become pirates. The anarchistic society has no defence since an army and police would be the minarchist definition of a state. After getting rich on plundering I decide to invade some of the anarchist societies and to end my days as tyrant. Ultramarine 23:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except anarchists have no problem with these collectives training themselves and organizing themselves into decentralized, officerless militias, and don't give a damn what minarchists have to say about it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 00:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The rogue statists applaud this decision. Their professional, high-technology expensive army will easily crush the "decentralized, officerless militias" and plunder the anarchist societies. Or even simpler, they might decide to use biological or chemical weapons to cleanse the areas. Ultramarine 00:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a competition, I'm explaining to you the theoretical answers to your poorly understood challenges. The reality is, statelessness does not happen in a vacuum, though it may start in one place. Same with communism. IT would need to, and would, spread beyond any imaginary boundries statists have drawn in the sand. Revolutions have a tendency of going global when they go all the way. Much like feudalism is now nowhere to be seen, so too would capitalism and statism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 00:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

In essence you are saying the anarchism must implemented all over the world with no states left. Even if this somehow would become possible this still would not stop wars by aggressiv states. Because some of the anarchist communities might decide that it easier to take than to produce. So they organize and arm themselves for raiding on other communities. Since they concentrate all their resources on this they will be much stronger than the peaceful communities. Ultramarine 01:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why though? They are given what they need by other communities for free, what is the incentive?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

But they decide they want all of what the other communities have. Or the women. See what happen with anarchistic groups of hunter-gatherers. Many of these communities makes constant war with each other. Ultramarine 10:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But you don't see, war is destruction. Destruction of goods that would otherwise been given to them for free, or in a gift economy to be amplified into even more goods. Why make war when you have peace and economic equality? And a decentralised army is superior: it is fluid and intangible to the enemy; nearly infallible. -- Natalinasmpf 21:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to dialogue

Yes, our article capitalism suffers from the same attempts by utopian advocates. Some claim no capitalist society has ever existed. Someone says it is not propaganda. That implies that a serious theorist might believe this utopian vision could in fact exist. I never met them in real life. What I enountered is people who insisted something good might eventually come out of all the effort, but made excuses for the imperfect contemporary examples. Let's pretend, in short. Fred Bauder 01:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, a lot of pure capitalist (aka laissez faire) economies have always existed. You can't compare "utopian capitalism" to "utopian communism" - communism was designed for utopia, capitalism was just meant to further the goals of one individual over the other. There is no proposed model for "capitalist utopia", because there was no such thing as a "capitalist manifesto", for instance. You have investment for dummies books, economics books or teachings on how to make money and discussion, but it was never to achieve utopia. Because the system's success is not based on how well the community does: just one individual. Hence, this does not apply. Communism - is an socioeconomic model. Capitalism is a purely economic system. True capitalist societies have always existed, true communist entities that took over countries have never existed. -- Natalinasmpf 02:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Natalinasmpf, but your argument is strange. If communism is an utopia, it means it will never be possible to establish it. Thus, it is impossible to judge its merits, and therefore to say if it's good or not. In a sense, Communism would be like the Garden of Eden - another quasi-religious myth. The problem with utopias is that you cannot criticise them and not falsify them. That exactly why utopias are not scientifically valid. Sure, you can argue that communism could be so much better, but you have no means to either prove it or disprove it. I could also argue that Communism is very bad, but again would have no means to prove it. Therefore, if we confine communism to its uropian version, we should rewrite the whole article and compare it to other such utopias - like the Garden of Eden. BTW your view of capitalism is clearly totally biased, but you are right in one point: capitalism is not an utopia, it's not an ideology. That's why it is not perfect - nothing is - but at least it tries to improve things (and it certainly improved things if you compare it to feudalism or tribal economies). Seeking refuge in an utopia may be nice, but it's just a way to avoid taking difficult decisions. Luis rib 10:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No means to disprove or prove it? Communism is a pre-thought economic theory, capitalism is more of labelling of a pre-existing formula, ie. chaos theory in economics. Communism is an economic theory and pre-conceived system,, and therefore the article shoud concern it as such. Capitalism is also an economic system, and should be perceived as such. You can't demand that only the material on real-life communism be implemented, because you are forgetting that communism doesn't need to be an economic system of a nation to count as a valid theory...free software, kibbutzes, anyone? The Garden of Eden is not an ideology based on sociopolitical science.

Avoid taking difficult decisions? Are you kidding me? Oh well, continue in your defeatist attitude, but the etymylogy still remains. Communism is an economic theory, which has real life implementations, capitalism follows something similar. As long as capital (assigning an absolute value to materials to invest in) is used, its capitalism. As long as there is a commune-based society, with the correct conditions (if someone compromises, it is no longer communism), that is communism. Communism just happens to apply in more narrow situations. -- Natalinasmpf 19:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communism compared to Fascism, etc.

I know this will anger many people here, but shouldn't there be a section comparing Communism to other ideologies which are viewed as totalitarian? Or, if not here, maybe on Communist state? After all, it is a criticism that is often made. Also, it appears on Fascism, so at least there should be a link to that page. Waiting for your comments... Luis rib 11:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, maybe on communist state, though I still wouldn't support that unless it was a criticism of the blurring of class lines under left and right forms of bonapartism (as stalin and hitler did), and its dangers as a barrier to progress and a road to totalitarianism. Speaking of which, I wonder if wikipedia has an article on bonapartism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'll consider it for Communist state then. BTW, Stalin was y far not the only one to behave depotically; Lenin already exhibited such traits, though in a milder form. Also, Pol Pot was probably even worse than Stalin (at least in my opinion), and many of his policies had a Communist background: elimination of bourgeoisie (ok, he did it in a radical way), elimination of money, total egalitarianism (i.e. everyone had a number), ... Sure, it was a perversion of pure communism , but since pure communism is utopian, everything is a perversion. Luis rib 21:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stalin was the only one. As for pol pot, he was also a bonapartist, and his main class was the peasantry, that was what led to the perversion. The peasantry is even more reactionary than the bourgeoisie if allowed to take power. But anyways. I do think that if we go into a deep discussion of why things went so wrong it would be a very useful addition. By deep discussion, I mean more than just "communism=against human nature=totalitarianism" :P-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the following: you (or somebody else) said that you couldn't take the USSR or China or Cambodia as an example of a communist economy because they had tried to implement it in countries that were not truly capitalist yet - and that's why it failed economically (let's forget about the human rights issues for a sec). Yet wouldn't that imply that if Communists want to succeed, they should support Capitalism in every way they can since they know that the more the society becomes capitalist, the sooner capitalism will crumble under its own contradictions and the sooner communism will emerge? Luis rib 10:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see this earlier, sorry. No, I don't believe I've ever said that you couldn't take them as communist for that reason, but in Marxist terms, that was a big part of why they failed. Cambodia I wouldn't even consider a Communist movement, let alone state. Both China and Cambodia began from the getgo with a bonapartist view favouring the reactionary peasantry (though cambodia abandoned this in favour of a brutal peasant dictatorship as soon as it could). The same peasantry that hates the cities, and longs for the old days. It is not their culture that places their economic interests in the camp against progress and the future, but their economic interest which create that reactionary culture. They are an obsolete class, and cannot play any major role in the march forwards. In Russia, they were involved (hence the sickle), but they were meant to be on the fringes until the proletariat could take over entirely. Of course, whether I agree with any of these strategies is not an issue, the reality is that whatever strategies were taken, none of these states were Communist because their "goal" was not achieved. That goal is more or less global abolition of class society, money and states. With a few minor exceptions, just as today there are a few minor semi-feudal pockets in the world.

As for supporting the bourgeoisie, back in their hayday, yes, support for their struggles generally meant support for their anti-monarchist, anti-aristocratic revolts. Today however, and in Russia this was particularly at issue, Capitalism has degenerated to the point where there is no motive to "rock the boat" for them much anymore. It is preferable to strike a deal with the despots, and graft capitalism onto despotism, rather than risk an explosion of democratic control. That role as democratizing force can no longer be played by the bourgeoisie. In third world countries, as Russia and China were and some say are, the bourgeoisie preferred to ensure that role for itself, the role of despots, by subordinating the country to imperialist powers rather than developing its infrastructure in any meaningful way. Those nations became nothing more than raw resource buffets, and never moved on. Looking at Russia, we can see that quite clearly, despite the huge problems, the tasks that the bourgeoisie were supposed to carry out were only possible under the control of a shaky alliance of proletariat and peasantry. Even today, the Russia bourgeoisie has still not moved beyond their stagnant nature. This is why today "supporting Capitalism" is not possible. Communists believe we are actually a part of those contradictions within Capitalism, at least a magnifying force. Wow... that was long, I hope it answers a few questions and makes some sense.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, in response to Luis' original argument, you're basically asking, shouldn't the immune system support viruses and bacteria and pathogens in every way because the they do so, the sooner the evolutionary drive to develop a better immune system emerges? The idea is to fight the pathogens, and so is the same thing for communism. -- Natalinasmpf 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarianism and Utopianism are Sociological impossibilities

Totalitiarianism is sociologically impossible, and has existed no where except in the works of fiction, and the minds of writers such as Orwell. Utopianism, which often seems to be similiar to totalitarianism; is the same. The terms should be totally striked from the article, atleast when talking of scientific communism, such as Marxism(-Leninism). --Mista-X 17:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which terms? The term "utopianism"/"utopian", or the terms classified as being "utopian"? Also totalitarianism, yes that is true, it means when the government has total control (to an extent), bu t the idea "approaching totalitarianism" could be a true statement. Generally, if someone is starving, but say, has only been starving for a week, and if no one continues to give him food, it would be correct to say he's approaching death, no? -- Natalinasmpf 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communism is Totalitarian

Unfortunately, the commies here on Wikipedia prevent communism from rightfully being treated in the same manner as nazism and fascism. Therefore, the crimes of communism are whitewashed, rationalized and equivocated away.

--Unsigned comment by User:212.202.51.84 Slac speak up! 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC).

To be frank, it would be nice if the editing process on this page could be something other than a "dialectic" between communist-sympathetic and communist-antipathetic users. But I don't particularly think name-calling is going to help anything much. Slac speak up! 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crimes? Or hijackings by state capitalists? -- Natalinasmpf 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The commies" That is just plain ignorant and babyish. Just because you may be a patriot of democracy or some such sh!t does not mean that you are right. As a matter of fact it seems that the USA tries to be totalitarian. They invade countries whose form of government they disagree with. Too bad that it was impossible for them to invade the USSR for all that time.

• Talk:Communism/Archive1

• Talk:Communism/Archive2

• Talk:Communism/Archive3

• Talk:Communism/Archive4

• Talk:Communism/Archive5

Recent reverts

...requires greater rationality or wisdom for the planners, or voters, or workers' council members, than is consistent with the bounded rationality of the species.

If this wording is seen to be imperfect, the concept must be expressed. One of the obvious failings of communism is that not only are humans not morally capable of intituting equality, they are also intellectually incapable. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a problem is the phrase bounded rationality, which comes from a generally antipathetic ideological position, and also implies that communism is somehow inherently naive and/or not humanly possible.Grant65 (Talk) 13:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism comes from "critics," see further discussion under that subheading below. Every ideological subject in wiki has a "criticism of" heading, as do scientific theories such as Darwinism, etc. And the criticism expressed there alwats comes from "antipathetic...positions" because that's where one would expect criticism to come from. Why is that a problem?

--Christofurio 20:11, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

If humans are not morally capable of "intituting" equality, then what could be? Equality in this sense is not even well-defined, and given a moral definition of fairness (of which there are a few contenders), humans could certainly approach the goal as they do any other.--Csmcsm 02:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps they could approach equality for themselves as individuals, but it would be more difficult to decide for others. Consider how individual the decision of whether to work an extra hour is, or to take if off, or to volunteer an hour. Prices, in the context of freedom, can aid in the decision, but ultimately the decision is individual. Equality is easy to apply if all individuals are identical, but the evidence is that even "identical" twins, aren't.--Silverback 07:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really have to stop using that 'twins' line. Physical makeup has nothing to do with equality (or equity, which is what we should be talking about). Certainly any normative view on either would be better than what capitalism has achieved so far.--Csmcsm 20:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism isn't done yet. Equality in poverty is better than inequality in wealth if one accepts the norm of envy, but why be so materialistic. Do you have any evidence for the certainty you assert, I doubt it can be achieved short of a tautology?--Silverback 22:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is clarified as a criticism. And of course communism is inherently naive and/or not humanly possible, thats the point! ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Sam. Thanks for the support. Criticism of an ideological position often cocomes from an "antipathetic ideological position"! What a shock. The NPOV thing to do is to state the various antipathetic positions fairly, and some of our communist friends seem averse to having that done here. --Christofurio 17:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The criticism is so naive I don't understand how such clever people as you, Sam can fall for it. Please explain how communism requires greater rationality for voters, council members, planners, etc. than, say, for President of the US of A, the SEC commission and Federal Reserve?

Let us forget for a second that the article is about communist ideology, not about its communist state. I understand that much of criticism comes from the thought that communists were planning everything, and this is humanly impossible, no doubt. But this is a naive college-grade understanding of communism, similar to the rumors that communists have everything common: common wives, common shoes and common toothbrushes. Another misunderstanding is that plans were something chiseled in stone. Of course there were not. They were always corrected through the course of the time. Sitll, please, this is not criticism of communism. This is criticism af any centrally planned economy, and hence belongs to the latter article.

Still another point, who told you that in communist state everything was planned for best of all people? That would require inhuman amount of planning for sure. In Soviet Union the planning was for good of the state in the first turn. People were treated as livestock; bare minimality. Mikkalai 19:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten and don't plan to forget that this article is about communist ideology, and I've done nothing to try to change the focus to communist states. The point, though, is that communism as described in the rest of this very article would require a sort of planning that would supplant markets and for-profit exchanges, rather than the sort that works through that medium. Most actual "communist" states give up on this idea pretty quickly -- it didn't take Lenin himself very long to retreat into the New Economic Policy. When I say such things, I often hear, "Oh yes, but next time will be different, we'll have majority rule." Sorry, but the problem is with the agenda. (There are other problems as well, having to do with the dynamics of revolutions, but that is the problem targeted by this criticism.) And, yes, this criticism belongs also in other articles. It doesn't follow it ought to be deleted from this one. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well the correlation between a command economy and communism is obviously that all prominent Communist states (before liberalization) have implemented a command economy. There has never been a country where the final classless communist phase was achieved and the government lost all its form, as Marx puts it. Trey Stone 03:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And one more: about alleged imposibility of total planning. If it were so, modern microchips could not possibly have beed designed and you wouldn't have this wonderful computer to type your naive arguments in. Ever heard about hierarchical approach to compex tasks? Mikkalai 19:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The distinction remains between planning within the context created by market exchanges and planning deprived of that context. You might spend a lot of time and effort devising a new and better microchip -- you must eventually sibmit it to the ultimate test of whether other freely contracting parties want to invest in its mass production, and their decision will have a lot to do with whether other freely contracting parties will want to buy it. Planning as a way of disrupting that higgle-haggle is uniformly a disaster, for reasons at whicht he critique in this article has hinted. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that few people have heard of "bounded rationality" and even fewer would agree that it is an accurate reflection of human beings. Maybe I should try inserting a bit of kitsch marxist jargon, just to see how long it lasts, on the Friedrich von Hayek page. That would be analagous to this new passage. Sam and Christofurio have illustrated their concept of "NPOV" remarkably well I think. Grant65 (Talk) 01:30, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that I cease struggling with this addition. It dawned upon me that it perfectly shows the brain damage of the "critics". Mikkalai 03:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good to see the depth of your commitment to civility. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

As opposed to those brilliant Communist theorists (whose favored states only collapsed due to imperialist pressure) Trey Stone 03:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marx had no chance to favor communist Mongolia and China (which is going to kick someone's ass yet). Mikkalai 03:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Communist in political structure, reformist in economic structure. Trey Stone 04:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, as communism is fundamentally an economic system, and less than 50% of the Chinese economy is owned by the state — a smaller proportion than in many OECD countries in the 1970s — China isn't even socialist, let alone communist any more. But maybe it will be again. For the moment it's a capitalist dictatorship of the neo-bourgeoisie ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

And oh, some bright kiddo wrote in comments: revert to Spade. punishment is not an intrinsic part of communist ideology. I guess in his study of communist ideology he didn't reach the chapter about dictatorship of the proletariat yet. Mikkalai

Perhaps that was written in response to whomever wrote this inanity "Lacking economic interests, there are two other major incentives: fear of punishment (as in slavery) and common benevolence of people (which is disputable)." I'm not sure what system or ideology was being talked about, but it was apparently written by a person unfamiliar with power, sex, status or any other of the basis of freshman psych, advertising or anthropology.--Silverback 05:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Sex as driving force of economic development! Dare to write a wikiarticle on this? Mikkalai 06:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a language barrier, you brought up non-economic incentives, or did you mean something different by "lacking economic interests". Your concept, whatever it was, was not stated very clearly in english, although you apparently don't see that.--Silverback 08:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You got me here. I was trying to correct the phrase "that it would remove incentives necessary for productivity". As you pointed out himself, there are plenty of various incentives, and it is ridiculous to think that communism removed all of them. You are so involved in proving that I am wrong that you don't see that the phrasing lacks merit, to say it civilisedly. But like I said, I will no longer edit this piece, an example of brain damage of critics. Mikkalai 18:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have two things to say here. #1, that central planning isn't supposed to be the end result in the communist ideology. That is socialism. And that anarchists often disregard this at all. #2: Dictatorship of the proleteriat, and punishment is also in itself socialism. Marxist-Leninism proposes using socialism as a interim period between capitalism and communism, so the concept that punishment and dictatorship of the proleteriat being associated with communism isn't that wrong, just that its meant as a intermediate measure, not the end measure. -- Natalinasmpf 22:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The slavemasters whip

Please see Talk:Communism#Human_nature. This ridiculous false dicotomy between "fear of the whip" and "common benevolence" (what the heck is that?) as forms of incentives is insane. Please look up reinforcement, Operant conditioning, and economics. Fear of punishment is not a major factor in the economies of the west (outside of prison, perhaps), and I think its easier to describe say.. Pol Pots communism as having been a slavery-based economy than even the pre-civil war united states south (even ancient egypt or feudalism had alot more to the economy than fear as an incentive, and not only financialy). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 08:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you on about? And what does it have to do with exogenous, anachronistic and hostile RCT concepts/jargon being used in an article about communism? Grant65 (Talk) 10:02, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

There was no dichotomy. Even less it was applied to the modern West. These were examples of other possible incentives, in addition to economic. The sole problem is my bad command of English. Sorry for confusion. Next time when dealing with complicated issues I will begin with a proposal at the talk page. Mikkalai 18:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear what I'm on about, and it has nothing to do w anything "exogenous" ;). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human nature

To such objections, communists reply that human nature is misrepresented by capitalists. For example, under slavery, slave owners said blacks were lazy and stupid and that whippings were necessary for productivity. Thus, communists say under what they consider capitalist wage slavery, that the same type of arguments are made as an excuse for the capitalists to expropriate surplus value from workers. This fails to take into account the role of reinforcers in Behavioral psychology, and confuses punishing reinforcers (whippings) with positive reinforcers (money).

I think starvation could be considered a punishing reinforcer. The slavemaster never threatened to starve his property. And wouldn't the food and shelter provided to the slave be a positive reinforcer just as money to buy food and shelter be to the wage slave? If capitalism was all positive reinforcers, the enclosure of the commons would never have been necessary. Ruy Lopez 19:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I pointed out the weakness of this section, but decided since it was such a poor argument that it was likely not verifiable, and was probably just an idea one of the editors had. If someone can cite it, they can feel free to restore it. My critique based on behavioural psychology certainly will be finding its way back into the text, as lack of proper incentive (positive reinforcement) is one of the more glaring logical errors of Communism (right up there with atheism). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you are most welcome to re-insert that famous Straw man into the article. But rest assured that I will also insert the 4 different communist refutations of it (yes, that argument is flawed in four different ways, and one of the counter-arguments mentions the fact that communism does, in fact, offer positive reinforcement to the people participating in it - while also relying on human rationality). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

?how is human psychology a straw man? And how does communism reward superior performance? Isn't that in contridiction to "to each according to his need"? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Sam, "superior performance" was both needed and rewarded in the Soviet/Maoist-type systems because they started from low bases of economic development. A corollary of this is that those underdeveloped societies were never communist in the sense that Marx himself understood communism. The societies which Marx actualy had in mind were the most developed countries. (The reasons why the first successful revolutions did not occur in the developed nations are a whole different debate.) Although all basic needs, and a wide range of consumer goods/services, would be available in a truly communist society, achievers would still be rewarded by accolades/ fame/etc. Of course some people always want more of any material thing than they can ever use, but as Engels said, in the higher phase of communism, they would simply be "laughed at". (Presumably because of the operant conditioning of communism *LOL*) I know it's hard to get your head around the idea that we already live in a state of abundance, albeit one scrambled and disfigured by (economic) class relations, but I suggest you think about it.Grant65 (Talk) 10:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your reply is nonsensical. We live in a state of abundance because we have a powerful economic base, derived from capitalism. I am in Germany, and while the country on the whole is well off, the eastern half had (and still has) a serious disadvantage due to having been ruined by communism. And if Marxism supplies "operant conditioning" of "fame" instead of cash rewards, why were even ballerina's and Olympic athletes (positions rewarded largely by fame in the west) especially well paid in communism, while "collective" farm laborers were periodically starved to death w artificial famines regardless of how hard they worked, often on the very land which had been stolen from them by the "egalitarianism" of communism. I think that's the sort of fame they would have preferred to do without, and has little to do with either business psychology or operant conditioning. 10 pounds of propaganda doesn't buy you one pound of bread. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree with both of you, we live in a time of scarcity. Demand for goods and services would be much higher if the prices were set to zero, and assuming the supply would be insufficient at that price, what goods and services were available would have to be rationed by some other means.--Silverback 10:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. First, scarcity and abundance are relative. Second, economics is all about the allocation of resources.Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It is about the allocation of scarce resources. "Abundant" resources in the economic sense, don't need to be allocated.--Silverback 12:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And your point is? BTW, do you mind not inserting your responses in the middle of other people's posts? IMO it makes the page hard to read.Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

My point economists are concerned with scarcity, if something must be allocated it is still scarce, even if some consider it relatively abundant. It is part of the basic definition of modern economics and price theory. BTW, I don't mind not inserting, but I disagree and find it more a more readable way to respond to particular points in multi-paragraph passages, since the response can be put immediately after the point. But as we have just illustrated, the value of that is subjective, you find it less valuable even though it took me more labor to produce.--Silverback 17:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the DDR was never communist in any meaningful sense, because the system there was exogenous ;-), i.e. it existed because of a lot of men wearing fur hats, carrying burpguns. Unless, that is, you think the KPD would have won a free election, or been swept to power in a proletarian revolution in East Germany in, say, 1946 without the Soviet presence? No, I thought not. Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We do not live in a time of scarcity. The major problem capitalism has is overproduction (what some call underconsumption, which is a different side of the same coin). This is not a wacky left-wing theory, pretty much everyone agrees with this as it is so blindingly obvious, although the *causes* are disputed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Jack, what's your take on when this economy is going to turn around?

WELCH: I think that you have a telecom shut down, you have a high tech slowdown, you have a lot of capacity. So you got weak pricing power.... You?ve got globalization. You've got global capacity everywhere...There are plants all over China that just built 20 million things that are coming in to this or that, so pricing pressure is what we're facing. The reason why jobs are tough is not volume. The reason why jobs are tough is there's no profitability.

luke} A lot of people think that human nature is inherantly greedy and that is the main arguement that communism can't work. i disagree, human nature can change. i refuse to believe that the British binge drinking or the US gun crime cultures are there forever and cannot change. Lenin turned the entire russian anti-semitic attitudes around in a few short revolutionary years, unfortunately Stalin reverted to it back.

-- former GE CEO Jack Welch on Hardball[22]

The economists' notion of scarcity has nothing to do one way or another with the sort of over-production that Welch was talking about there. Your confusion is also indicated by the phrase "time of scarcity". Nobody maintains that the early 21st century is uniquely a time of scarcity -- the point rather, is that every time has been a time of scarcity, because demands are capable of infinite expansion, supplies are not. --68.9.148.204 16:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I removed the italicised section in the passage below:

Objectivists and other laissez-faire capitalists, who see self-interested behavior as itself a moral ideal and identical to rationality, claim that communism removes incentives necessary for human productivity. They argue that communism ignores (or is wrong about) "human nature". More specifically they make the claim that communism denies individuals the means necessary for their survival. So from an objectivist perspective the concept of "human nature" does not refer to a persistent attribute of human psychology but rather a very real physical necessity. It comes from the belief that a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes. And if the fruits of his labour are taken from him against his will, he will have no incentive to work. Communists, however, take the view that self-interest is a function of the material conditions of society and if the material conditions change so that competition and greed is no longer necessary to survive, mass behavior will change accordingly.

I have an idea of the point that someone is trying to make here, but it doesn't come over well or NPOV. The idea that a worker can enjoy the profit from his hard work in a given capitalist relations of production is strongly libertarian POV. To say simply that a worker should enjoy those fruits isn't an objection to communism, but rather exactly what communists argue (see Labour theory of value. This contribution also mixes up communism as a future system of global common ownership with communism as the system implemented by self-declared communist parties. And yes, of course you can argue that they end up the same in the end, but others can argue the opposite... The addition also doesn't segue into the rest of the paragraph that was there to begin with. I wasn't able to work out a way of rephrasing the point properly in a way that avoided these problems, so have removed the section for now. Mattley 10:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's very bad to remove the whole thing before discussing it. Sure, the paragraph was pretty badly written. But the criticism it makes is valid, and is indeed often made. What you claim is "libertarian POV" is actually a pretty widely held view, usually called meritocracy. It argues that those that work harder get a higher salary. This is not at all the Communist point of view. You can argue one is better than the other, but it is POV to remove a valid and widely claimed criticism. Luis rib 19:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luis rib, I am sorry you think we should allow badly written, ambiguous and POV statements to remain in articles whilst we try to work out exactly what the anonymous contributor meant to say. I take the opposite view. As I said, I wasn't able to work out a way of rephrasing it appropriately, but I did take the trouble to explain at some length what I thought was wrong with it for the benefit of anyone who might want to correct those failings and restore the comment in some other form. Perfectly reasonable behaviour, I would think. Read back over the above. The part I object to as reflecting a libertarian POV is the part that states that this particular criticism 'comes from the belief that a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes'. Since objectivists argue for capitalist relations of production, this statement effectively endorses the view that it is possible for workers to enjoy the fruits of their labour within capitalism and rejects a different and opposite view, embodied in the Labour theory of value, which has it that capitalism is based on not returning to workers the full value of their labour. I never argued that the former POV was not widely held, but rather that it is POV. We are endorsing a particular POV there. To be NPOV that comment would need to be restated in order to make it apparent that it was a POV that was being reflected, rather than simply a statement of fact. But the problems with the above contribution go beyond that, and beyond the issues I noted in my earlier contribution. Even if it were established that the statement that 'a worker should enjoy the profit from his hard work regardless how successful he becomes' was a meritocratic argument, even if it were identified as a particular POV, it would still be an arguement that surely did not apply exclusively to communism but to any society that practised progressive taxation. What about this comment 'they make the claim that communism denies individuals the means necessary for their survival.' What? How does it do that? Where do they claim this and why? And this one: 'the concept of "human nature" does not refer to a persistent attribute of human psychology but rather a very real physical necessity.' What on earth does that mean? It isn't at all obvious from the comment itself. So, given all of that, I'm not making any apologies for removing the passages in question. Mattley 20:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand your reasons better now. I tried to change the human nature part a bit. Each paragraph shows both sides' views now. Also added meritocracy, including your comment that taxation could also achieve it (although I personnally don't believe it). I think it's more NPOV now, but feel free to change stuff. I also deleted the second part of the violence section, which was a critique on capitalism and had nothing to do with communism. It should be added to the capitalism page. Luis rib 21:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

communism and economics

The basic criticism that it would be impossible to plan a communist society is fine. Someone wants it here, and it belongs here.

Nonetheless, it is replete with a total lack of understanding of Marxism, communism and so forth. These critics of communism know next-to-nothing about Marxism or communism, as I have stated before.

The second and third sentences are: "Theoretically, in a market system, scarce skills and resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands. Without an efficient market system, prices can send the wrong signals to consumers and planners, resulting in decisions that don't reflect the choices they would make if they knew the actual costs and competing demands for those resources."

First of all the idea that "scarce...resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands" pertains to the capitalist system, not the "market" system. If one looks at the life of a commodity as production -> exchange -> consumption, how is the exchange/market system of the USSR different than the US? A worker goes into a store and exchanges rubles (or dollars) for a loaf of bread. They are both market systems (of course, it should go without saying that the USSR socialist system would be different than a communist system).

Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Regards, the USSR, the difference is how the price is set, when prices are set artificially low resources are wasted, such as demand being so high that people have to spend considerable time in queues and the supply running out before all demand is satisfied. Another example was the price of clothing being set so low for new clothing that consumers used them as rags for cleaning autos or floors, since unimproved fabric was not any cheaper, and the clothing price did not reflect the resources used to improve the fabric.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being that "economics" is a word invented by right-leaning people in the field studying what everyone at one time called political economy, in a narrow sense economics is the idea that the study of (political) economy is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. However, economics is more often used in the broader sense. Probably the best question I could ask that would show your first sentence ("Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources") is incorrect is this - what was economics the study of prior to the publication of Gossen's work in 1854? Because absolutely no one was studying the "allocation of scarce resources" prior to that.

How is prices being set too low or too high different in the USSR and the US? I read the Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning and it said Wal-Mart had said it set prices too high in the last month. So setting the price too high in the US or USSR was the same thing (of course, the word price had slightly different meanings in different economies). No one would disagree that errors are made and capitalist or socialist systems sometimes misprice something. Another example would be a computer error pricing a gallon of milk at 10 cents in a supermarket. And socialist economies made errors like this as well. But I think we are talking about systematic problems during normal operations here, not the occasional error that pops up.

You neglect the point, the problems I pointed out were an imbalance of supply and demand because the communist system set the price with some other goal in mind than balancing the two. The pricing errors of Walmart resulted in lost business and oversupply for their prices, they responded by lowering the price and altering their supply. In a communist system which sets prices by the labor theory of value, (not that the USSR did that), there could be an imbalance between supply and demand even though the price was set correctly according to the theory, therefore there is no correction to be made, fixing the problem by changing the price would be switching to a different theory of value.--Silverback 12:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the communist point of view, there is no such thing as the setting of a price. A price is known the minute the producer is finished creating the commodity, the price is the number of homogeneous necessary labor hours are congealed in the commodity. You can't "mis-price" something systematically, since there is no such thing as mispricing, really. You can produce a "commodity" that no one wants however. There can't be an imbalance between supply and demand since every exchange is equal, there can only be commodities produced that no one wants - something that happens in capitalism as well.

In fact, this would be less of a problem in a socialist/communist economy. In a capitalist economy, capitalists compete to sell commodities which people don't want. It's like musical chairs - there are more commodities produced than buyers. This is not a problem in socialist and communist economies, nothing creates conditions which would lead to overproduction. Without this competition, there can be more cooperation and more planning coordinating production for exchange (or in communism production for need). Ruy Lopez 13:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I think you may be implying another point about how prices act as triggers. But you didn't say so, so I responded to what you said.

As I said earlier, I think a lot of people here know little of these subjects. The idea that economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources didn't even begin to arise until 1854. Prior to that, another theory reigned, and many people still believe the original theory, not the new STV/marginalist one. It seems to me that a lot of people here don't disagree with the original theory, they don't even know it existed or the history of the theories that they themselves are describing. I feel my knowledge of these fields is inadequate, but several Wikipedia contributors on this page and others seem to know less about this than what even I. Ruy Lopez 10:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, that this is how capitalist systems works is just of one various competing theories. Of course, it is the one capitalists within the capitalists system prefer (although not necessarily workers). The early bourgeois economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc. certainly did not believe this, and in fact shared Marx's view that value came from labor, that prices were determined by labor time and so forth. In fact, this was the accepted view when Marx began his studies and Marx agreed with it. There really was no argument against this until Hermann Heinrich Gossen published The Development of the Laws of Exchange among Men and of the Consequent Rules of Human Action, the ideas of which were fleshed out by the subjective theory of value school (marginalists). In fact, Marxism (and all of classical economics prior to HH Gossen and friends) is counterposed to this new theory of value.

Anyhow, that's just the second and third sentence. As I said, the basic ideas of this section are fine, the criticism that communism is not plannable, but STV (marginalists) ideas are just that - ideas, theories, not fact and should be marked as such. So I will be rewriting this section. Ruy Lopez 09:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you would explain how communist planning is done on a large scale without a state, how consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized, etc. I've no problem with you labeling the criticism as theory, albeit, a well developed theory that is able to explain a lot of the behavior of prices, consumers and suppliers as well as the problems and inefficiencies that sometimes occur. In your rewrite it would help if you could criticize communism from each of what you see as the competing theories of capitalism, so we can evaluate their perspectives. --Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marx said he did not write recipes for cookshops of the future, and communists generally do not spell out or dictate how things would be done in the future. However, in the past and present communists can point to existing models of say large scale planning, like the creation of the Linux operating system (the original author of which had a father who was a prominent communist). So-called primitive communist societies are other examples, as are things like Amish barn-raisings and so forth.

I've been more interested in what I would call misstatements about capitalism, or theories about capitalism which I do not share. Consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized in a capitalist economy as in a socialist economy - a product that can't be exchanged is not a commodity. Production decision makers in a capitalist economy and socialist economy would draw the same conclusions from the same data. STV/marginalism is certainly a well-developed theory. Anti-capitalists perceive many holes in it though. For example, the theory of marginal utility was developed to explain prices. Except prices are what display what the marginal utility of a commodity are. This is tautological - marginal utility explains prices which explain what the marginal utility of something is which is reflected in its price and so on and so forth. There are other holes in the theory which I won't go into at the moment, as they'd take some time to explain.

For example, from the anti-capitalist view, if inflation, the value of gold whatnot remains stable, then the price of a commodity is obvious. A capitalist should know exactly what the price of a commodity is upon production without any guesswork as it is very obvious. The *only* thing he doesn't know is if it will sell (e.g. be exchanged) or not. The idea that the commodity would be put on the market and the price raised or lowered "according to the market" is seen as laughable by anti-capitalists. It is a completely different theory about how production and markets work. Ruy Lopez 11:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the first paragraph is fairly straightforward, but the next three paragraphs having to do with the skyscraper are vague and make little sense. It is about how in capitalism, a skyscraper can be planned better than in communism. There are three paragraphs leading up to an argument and then - no argument. The last paragraph is leading up to this non-existent argument: "Critics contend that the implementation of communism in the sense described above would involve supplanting precisely these market and contract conditions that make planning possible. It would be planning instead of haggling, rather than planning within the context of haggling. That is what they contend is not practicable." OK, we have an example of a skyscraper, a description of how capitalists build a skyscraper and then a simple assertion that STVers don't think communists could build a skyscraper. The reason why is not given.

I know Amish people get together and do barn-raisings in basically a communist manner - each gives according to ability and each gets according to need. Of course, a skyscraper is more complex than a barn, but if one looks back 75 years, the tallest "skyscraper" in the world was less than 800 feet high, and most of what has enabled taller buildings to be built have been advances in engineering, and the factors leading to one wanting to go to the trouble of building such a large building. Beyond the architect, building a skyscraper is not that complex - you build a floor, then build another floor, and just keep going up. Nonetheless, all of this is more of an opinion than a reason. I see no argument made here. Ruy Lopez 10:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticism Comes From Critics

I'm responsible for the skyscraper example -- inspired by a dialogue with Mihnea on another article's talk page. The point, here, isn't that communists can't make one, but that the when and where of that resource allocation would be arbitrary and likely misdirected in the absense of market signals. (I would expect that the Amish anarcho-communist barn raisings respond to less formal signals than either a central planners' or a capitalistic skyscraper. The informality is affordable, because a barn is fairly easy to dismantle, the wood can be re-used elsewhere. Dismantling a skyscraper is a different matter.) Of course, communists might take the Stakhanovite approach -- "the more skyscrapers, the better, because it embodies our labor," -- and end up with empty buildings blotting out the sky and a shortage of steel, etc. that would have been very useful elsewhere. When you change the subject and start talking about diamond prices you've lost me. That's releant to articles about the labor theory of value, etc. -- here we're simply trying to state a common objection to communism to make this article complete.

Of course, planners might do a survey to find out whether there is enough demand for office space in a certain location to put a skyscraper there. But that concedes the point that its value comes from that demand, not from congealed labor -- and the survey data make more sense within a price system which includes comparative rents, etc., than in the absense of such signals anyway, which of course is the point. --Christofurio 16:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why is everyone saying I am changing the subject to diamonds, I am not the one who mentioned scarce resources.

I am glad of the point you made in the second paragraph as I have to explain less now. I would actually prefer to use the example of a cruise ship to a skyscraper as I feel it is simpler and less confusing, but I'll stick with the skyscraper example for now. Yes, lets say the planners would do a survey and see there was enough demand for office space. Let's even say that the skyscraper builders even got people to agree to pay them when the skyscraper was delivered. Of course the object has to be in demand, I've already said that. I don't think you understand LTV, this is in Capital Volume I, Chapter I. A commodity is not a commodity unless it is exchanged, and it won't be exchanged unless there is a demand for it. I can go into my room and paint a bad painting all day, and if no one wanted to buy it it would not be a commodity, it would just be something I worked on for myself (which no one wanted). Work people do for themselves, and not for exchange, is not a commodity. If I knit myself a sweater, I have not made a commodity as I've done it for my own use. If no one wants the skyscraper, it is not a commodity, it was something people built for fun or whatever. If people want it, then it is a commodity.

Communists think prices simply mask the homogeneous necessary labor time congealed in a commodity. So a price comparison in many ways is comparing a skyscraper or ship that takes 10,000 man-hours or person-hours to build, to a skyscraper or ship that takes 11,000 person-hours to build. The latter one would obviously be priced more. And if one is a William Levitt type who puts down buildings one after the other after the other, one has a pretty good idea what the homogenous necessary labor time to build such a building is ahead of time. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand the LTV very well. I don't think there's any reason to prove that to you, because the point here is simply to include a fair statement of a historically important objection to communism. You keep saying you don't want it to be here because it comes from the adversaries of communism. Of couse it does! And if you look at the "criticism" section of the article on anarcho-capitalism you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of that view. If you look at the "criticism" section of the articles on Darwinian evolution, you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of those views. And so forth. That is what a criticism section is for.

The claim that prices have information value concerns prices specifically. To the extent Marxists mean something else by "value" then "price," then they aren't really contradicting this point. Whatever you may want to say about value, price comes largely from market demand -- and that fact implies that it carries information about market demand. You say "communists think" differently. Okay. Most of the article is devoted to how communists think. Why should there not be, as there is elsewhere, a section for how the critics of communism think. Why is it an objection to any view on either side to say that communists and non-communists don't think the same way?

A few words more about skyscrapers. The problem I raised isn't the possibility that people would build a skyscraper for fun. It is the question of knowing whether the use of resources for this purpose rather than some other is optimal. You say nothing that gives me any reason to believe there is an alternative to a pricing system that would do this better. Any survey that would make any sense would be set against a background pricing system. Likewise with Levittown. The GIs came home to America after the war and wanted to get married, have kids, 'settle down' as the saying went. The building boom fed off such demand, and the housing prices that came about as a result thereof.

There was also statist interference in various ways. If we find Levittown to be a sub-optimal use of resources, I suggest that we might look at the planning implied in that interference. --Christofurio 13:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall objecting to the inclusion of any criticism except in the case where communism is confused with a socialist state. Other than that, I have simply pointed out criticisms were in the wrong sub-sections of the criticism section.

It wasn't, though. I was making various points in the human nature section because limits to rationality are as much an issue about human nature. Also, to the extent communism is supposed to be arrived at through a socialist route -- criticizing one is criticizing the other, and the distinction is pointless. Also, yopu've interpolated statements into every effort to state the Austrian criticism of communism in order to distract from any effort to get it fairly stated.

Suppose, for purposes of comparison, we were writing a passage about criticisms of Darwinism. I might write, "There are defenders of the views of Larmark, who believe that acquired characteristics can be inherited." Would it be fair for you to change that to this? "There are, though Darwinians disagree, defenders of the view of Larmark, with whom Darwinians disagree, who believe although Darwinians disagree that acquired characteristics can be inherited, although Darwinians disagree." Does that sound NPOV? AT what point are such continued interruptions of a point simply to state and restate and re-restate the mere fact of disagreement an unfair undermining of an effort to make a point that ought to be made? Frankly, I believe there is such a point and you have crossed it. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Price does not carry information about market demand, only exchange carries information about market demand. Price contains no information, the only case you can make for that is a price of zero contains information versus a non-zero price (from a 5 cent stick of gum to a million dollar house). Price is just a convulted method of expressing homoegenous necessary labor

time congealed in a commodity.

You are right in a sense about exchange, perhaps however, you were missing the implicit sense of prices as market prices set by exchanges in the market, not just the arbitrary price that someone might be asking or offering. The market price does carry information about demand. Of course. illiquid and non-commodity markets are less informative. But setting prices on labor alone will lead to very uneconomic decisions and lower levels of individual satisfaction, and less optimal macro-economic results in terms of gross product and efficiency. You would be wasting the medium of exchange (money) as a surrogate for measuring and assessing total resources, labor, and relative demand for them in informing individual distributed decision making. --Silverback 01:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not miss the idea that prices are set by exchange, I just disagree with it. The value of something is set the moment the commodity is finished being produced. The only question then is whether or not it is exchangable with something of equal value. If it's not, its not a commodity. It is just a completely different theory. In the Marxian theory, uneconomic decisions and sub-optimal macro-economic results come from a variety of sources, including capitalism's need to manufacture commodities which will not be exchangable. As I said, this actually isn't totally a Marxian theory, even GE CEO Jack Welch and many others have conceded this, or at least conceded all of the observations that would lead one to this conclusion. As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that? That's a very, very tenuous hypothesis as there is no way of measuring it, it is just based on a hypothesis from the conclusions of the other theory. And again, in your theory you claim prices somehow magically contain information on resources, labor and relative demand, but of course, you're unable to separate them into components since only the invisible hand of the marketplace knows. Marxian theory dispels with such mysticism - it deals just with what is known - will the commodity be exchangable? How much labor time went into creating the commodity? Natural resources have no value other than the labor-time congealed in them during extraction. I understand the STV/marginal theory, the older theory, which Marx subscribed to, simply disagrees with it. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't "understand" it if you need to characterize it as "magical". The market price of something is the price at whichit is being exchanged or exchangeable. You are making a pointless distinction. You seem to object to the significance of exchange prices on the grounds that they involve only a "binary decision" along the lines accept/reject. But ... so what? Digital computers work on the basis of binary on/off switches. Enough binary choices and one has a calculation -- and a result that carries information. What is "magical" about this? That you don't like it, I accept. But you make negative characterizations about its being "magic" and "mysticism" which turns out to be just new ways of restating the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the information-carrying significance of prices. Exchanged prices, of course. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as the use of resources, due to the nature of our economic system, the only way of knowing whether the use of the resource of labor-time is "optimal" or not is whether the commodity made with the labor-time is exchangable. I don't even think the word optimal is that great - optimal implies different levels of something whereas there is only one arbiter - exchange. An ounce of gold can be exchanged for 450 dollars, or 425 euros, but one is not more optimal than the other, they are all equivalent to one another. Ruy Lopez 01:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is the beauty of it, you don't have to rely on one arbiter, or even know whether it is optimal overall, in a market, individuals just need to perform their local optimizations according to their local goals, local information and the market information given by market prices. Perhaps there is some global optimum that is not achieved through such local optimization techniques, but at least whatever optimum that is achieved reflects the individuals values as expressed by their real willingness to exchange resources for them and not some enforced agreement or theorectical consensus where the individual did little more than express a preference in a poll.--Silverback 01:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about markets? What is the difference between the central committee of the CPSU setting grain production quotas and the management of ADM setting grain production quotas, the grain being made into a bread which goes to the market which is exchanged for dollars or rubles and then consumed? The only difference is in the method of production control - in capitalism, corporate bureaucrats make almost all production decisions, in USSR socialism, CPSU bureaucrats made almost all production decisions.

The USSR had markets too, where do you think workers went to buy bread, shirts and such things? The local market.

Interesting point. Workers didn't simply distribute bread to one another, they went to the market to buy it with rubles. Any justification for that practice is also a justification for the opening of stock and bond exchanges, too. --Christofurio 20:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as market information given by market prices, there is only a binary piece of information, which I wouldn't even call price, but whether a commodity was exchangable with a commodity of equal value.

Again, you seem to see some significance in what you do or don't want to "call" things. If you offer me a euro for this doohicky, and I agree, then we have established an exchange price for the doohicky. That is, as you say, a "binary piece of information." It is also a price. Prices = information. Why do you need to stir up so much confusion about that simple point? There might be a lot of reasons why we agreed on one euro. Some of them involve supply and some involve demand. Both sets of reasons involve other prices, and alternatives each of us had in other markets. The price of the doohicky is part of that broader system. This is not a theory, it is a simply fact.

Anyhow, as I said before, these are two different theories. At a certain point one reaches diminishing returns discussing this, we're both simply restating over and over the differences between the LTV and STV theories. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Diamonds are a switch of subject in the way that you invoked them, because you're simply changing the subject to LTV, which is another way of saying, "communists think differently from their critics." Yes -- in general anyone who believes in X thinks differently from the critics of X. So? In an article about Xism, one ought to include a fair statement of the difference, and not keep interrupting that statement with distractions such as ... "but of course, Xists disagree with these disagreements with X"! --Christofurio 14:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I found the switch to diamonds in the article particularly troubling, because they are not as scarce as believed, and take relatively little labor to produce (about $2 per carat) and have been artificially made scarce by a cartel. I'd like to find a different example of a utilitarian good that takes little labor to produce, but that consumes a scarce resource or material that has competing alternate uses, in order to illustrate how a labor theory of value price would lead to uneconomic decision making by consumers because the scarcity is not reflected in the price nor is the opportunity cost of alternate uses of the scarce material.--Silverback 17:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What "switch"? I have given an example of a scarce resource, (finely) cut large diamonds. What was the previous example this was switched from? What was the scarce resource example you are saying this was switched from because I don't see it. Finely cut diamonds with many carats are not $2 per carat, if you can buy at those prices please tell me because I'll be glaf to pay you double or triple. I am talking about the entire labor process, not just the guy who drives the truck to the jewelery store. I think diamonds are a good example but I'll entertain other ones (gold?) It's not for me to think up your examples for you. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism requires Atheism?

Isn't that true? I thought atheism was a common denominator. All this talk about early christian / amish / shaker communism-like activities makes my head spin. What's the deal? I thought religion was the opiate of the masses and we were to find our solace in praying to Marx or some such ;) Maybe Juche?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why should communism require atheism? Sure, the various Marxist strains have been pretty anti-clerical, but common ownership of the means of production is clearly a much older idea. Grant65 (Talk) 12:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK then, you are suggesting Communism can be divorced of Marx entirely? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism and communist experiments existed before Marx and, in fact, before Marx most experiments with communism were of a religious nature, particularly among Christians. AndyL 12:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well thats a bit of a hat flipper, since I favor communal sharing in a religious setting, and to some extent among other NGO's. But that doesn't make me a commie, does it? :S

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One might take you more seriously if you didnt' use words like "commie". I doubt anyone would take an editor of the Christinaity article very seriously if he or she kept referring to Christians as "Jesus freaks". Anyway, there's quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was a communist while there's absolutely no evidence that he was a capitalist;) See the stub Religious communism as well as Christian socialism and social gospel .AndyL 21:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus probably did participate in markets as a carpenter, and his objection to money changers had more to do with inappropriate location (the temple). Perhaps, he can serve as a good example of tolerance to other communists, since he eschewed a state christianity, not seeking to overthrow the Roman empire (render unto Caesar...) but advocating a more bottom up, personal morality approach. --Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All successful communist societies have had a religious basis. They have been of moderate size, from a few hundred to a few thousand members. Their religious basis has varied from radical interpretations of Christianity such as Oneida Community to quite fundamentalist and conservative such as the Shakers of Ann Lee, many were based on German pietism. These communities were very prosperous and were the envy of their less-favored neighbors [23]. Secular efforts to imitate them such as New Harmony were unsuccessful. Fred Bauder 14:17, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

why just start at a few hundred, the church itself has been described as a family of family and perhaps communism starts even smaller, "whenever three or more are gathered in his name". Variants of the altruism meme have some persuasive power, perhaps because of the altruism "gene". I still think they break down and become virulent with size, large churches become cults, adopt rigid virulence, or split. Perhaps communism requires community and community has its size limits.--Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Anthropologists postulate all societies were communist prior to about 4000 B.C.E. One thing which is self-apparent is that a society with no surplus must be communist. In other words, if I have to spend all day working just to feed myself, with nothing left over in surplus (or "profit"), I obviously live in a communist society. There is nothing left over to supply a slave-master, feudal lord or capitalist. Ruy Lopez 00:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, the first signs of surplus predate 4000 B.C.E., there is evidence of art, ornament, ritual, hierarchy and status, tools refined beyond mere satisficing in the archeological evidence of pre-history. Some of these signs of surplus have been proposed as defining of modern humans and are assumed exist, even before the better preserved technologies developed.--Silverback 00:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say 4000 BCE, I said about 4000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, societies shifted to agriculture from being more-or-less hunter-gatherers. This created a steady surplus, which allowed for the possibility of the existence of a class that did not need to do work. Ruy Lopez 12:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course communism doesn't require atheism. Intrigue 00:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruy didn't like my earlier changes to the "Other forms of communism" section, likely because it was POV. I have now corrected my wording and feel it is now NPOV. Wikipedia says that we should be writing NPOV material, that is, we should try to show different sides of an issue, not cover up opposing views. So Ruy, although you are a communist, you have to play by Wikipedia rules. You cannot cover up a belief held by many Christians that opposes the "Jesus was a communist" theory. Besides, you are not religious, how could you even try to say that this belief is unsound, illogical, or untrue? You may disagree with this position but you cannot (according to Wikipedia rules) revert my edits whenever you get a chance. Correct them if they seem too POV for you, but don't cover them up by reverting them every time. How about some dialogue before you revert them next time, huh? Think NPOV Ruy.Gaytan 22:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All Communist states (perhaps there are a few exceptions) have been atheist, yes. Recall Marx describing religion as a pointless distraction from "revolution." J. Parker Stone 01:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Communism is secular, not athiest, isn't it? That means it doesn't require religion, but its not actually opposed to it. -- Natalinasmpf 22:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Early communism may not have required atheism but modern theories, and certainly Marxism, do. While everyone knows Marx's "Reiligion is the opiate of the masses" quote (I'd love to hear what he'd think of TV today), the real opposition to religion comes from its class nature. All communists strive to create a classless society and the clergy have traditionally maintained their own customs, dress codes, ideals and organisations. They are arguably the most distinct of all classes GreatGodOm 29 June 2005 13:19 (UTC)

Ruy states: "As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that?"

The barometer is exchanges at prices that reflect supply and demand. If a person chooses to exchange x which he has for y in the market place, it is assumed in economics that he considers himself better off. The assumption may not be valid if the person is stupid or lacks information about the goods being exchanged and needs big brother to make the decisons for him to achieve happiness. But the core of economics gives the individual a little credit for having better information about his own preferences and what would satify him than others making the decison for him would. This is the reason both sides in an exchange usually say "thank you", otherwise they would be making the exchange, since if the goods were of equal value to each they would not make the exhange since the transaction cost would make them better off with their status quo. Furthermore, if a person has a medium of exchange like money and the market has many goods which he could exchange it for, his purchase of x instead of y or z, displays his preference and satisfies him more than making the other choices or no exchange at all. Perhaps you don't accept this economic assumption, it depends on whether you give individuals a little credit for being able to autonomously make their own decisions.

In a communist mass society, where prices are set by the labor theory of value, people will respond the same way to price signals, if those signals don't also reflect the rarity of materials or the demand of them for higher uses for example, the fact that silver's value should reflect its usefulness in electronics and photography, what is to prevent it from all being used up for silverware. When prices do reflect demand, silver will go to where it will produce the most economic value, because uses that produce more value will be able to bid more for it. Note that a market system, also values less utilitarian things, such as silverware, but those who value it, had to value it more than others, since they had to value it enough to bid it away from other uses. Perhaps a person is stupid for valuing a silver spoon more than a radio, or film, but that is the subjective nature of value. Markets and prices tend to allocate things to achieve greater overall satisfaction and efficiency, at least where, information costs, transaction costs and externalities are low.--Silverback 00:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

??? I don't know where to start with this! As a piece of 'market-advocacy' it is an interesting perspective, but it is not an NPOV treatment of the subject. Intrigue 15:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you might start by reading some micro-economics and price theory. Perhaps market economics is a POV subject, but even so, its theory of price, efficiency, and even problems have been fleshed out and practiced, much more than whatever the communist equivilent would be in a mass society that had a minimal or limited state. Until that is worked, perhaps communes had best interact with the world as basic survival units (BSUs) within existing free market societies. The can price their goods as they wish, and participate in markets exchanging with other BSUs such as individuals, families, state sanctioned limited liability corporations (they can't exist without state sanction, so should be thought of as part of the state), etc. Of course, when participating in the markets, they might find the prices quite different, but arbitragers will step in to reduce any inbalances.--Silverback 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view, but it's far from fact. Intrigue 03:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting response, I mentioned a theory from an established field and then I mention a proposal for how communes might co-exist and operate within a market economy and you respond with "it's far from fact". Frankly, you aren't passing the Turing Test.--Silverback 04:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because I am a PHP script. It's fine to quote this as a theory, and reference who thinks it, it is just that presenting it as uncontested fact is not ok. Beep beep. Intrigue 20:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a robustly confirmed theory, I suppose you think the theories of evolution and relativity should have to be presented the same way. It would be a herculean task to present all the supporters of these theories, and the list of contesters, would either be some crackpots, or some bleeding edge tweakers who really accept the theory as 90 % right.--Silverback 00:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, we do reference who proposes these theories, and they are a lot easier to agree on than theories about 'levels of individual satisfaction'. I certainly don't think that this theory has 90% acceptance among any reasonable group of people. I'm disturbed by your reluctance to reference it if it really is that mainstream, I'm certainly not asking for every proponent, just one or two notable ones. Intrigue 02:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are not many universities without microeconomics and price theory courses.--Silverback 02:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have no problems attributing this theory to some published authors. Intrigue 19:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I wouldn't. I would just pick a broadly distributed comprehensive text, such as Exchange and Production: Theory in Use by Alchian & Allen., that way I wouldn't have to make a Darwin or Dawkin's type of choice. --Silverback 12:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement - the theory will be referenced in the article as one advanced by these people (among others)? Intrigue 18:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, there is a lot of unreferenced material in the article. The culture on the this page seems to be to achieve balance in unreferenced material. In this type of culture, if certain info, is seriously challenged, as patently false or illogical or nonsensisical then there might be a specific request or challenge to document it. We give each other space here, people present their arguments and the reader has the burden of weighing whether they make sense or not. For instance, in the human nature section, there is a poor example of "altruistic" human behavior, the mother caring for the child, which is universal mammalian behavior and which evolutionary theory never had any problem explaining. Certain risky behaviors in situations where the genetic relationship was more distant or less certain is where the research was grappling with. And the idea the capitalism suppresses altruism and communism might release these bonds is speculation bordering on nonsense. However, I credit the reader with being able to detect what might have rigor behind it and what does not. Now if you want to go through the article with a fine tooth comb, and find things you can challenge with credible and on-point references you will be a formidible contributer and closer to passing the turing test. However, such rigor might disturb the communitarian peacefulness of the communism page. 8-) --Silverback 19:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unreferenced or not, I think everyone understands the idea of an open market. However, the unproven part is whether market price-setting actually does result in higher levels of individual satisfaction. Why would it not? Simply because market forces rely on relatively short-term vision and are not coherent. Large-scale long-term projects beneficial to all are rarely initiated by market entities. Nor does the general direction of the market necessarily provide greater individual satisfaction. One might consider that if the resources invested in the perfume market (for instance) were instead allocated to general healthcare and/or dietary balance, satisfaction may very well be increased even for those individuals who would ordinarily have purchased perfume.--Csmcsm 01:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It results in higher satisfaction than the consumer started off with, since the exchanges are voluntary. This is not being compared to what some omniscient planner would do assuming he knew what was really best, it is being compared to the same consumer exchanges where instead the prices are set on the labor theory of value, prices that don't reflect the scarcity of resources or the demand for higher uses. Under the labor theory of value, the price would be the same for steel spoons as for silver spoons if their manufacturing and supply processes required the same amount of labor. Scarce resource like silver or energy, and alternate demand from higher uses such as silver in electronics or photographic plates (perhaps for X-rays) is not reflected in the price and thus not in the consumer decision. The assumption is that the consumer would make better decisions with better information, admittedly this gives the consumer credit for a little intelligence and personal knowledge of his/her own values. You view perfume as a short term decision that ignores the long term posibilities, but it may the proper longer term choice in the consumer's value system, if for instance it enables the procurement of a more fertile mate with higher quality genes (someone really, really good looking?). You talk as if noone should ever accept risks for short term pleasure, as if, in a communist society, there would be no mountain climbing, sky diving, promiscuous sexuality, jaywalking, etc. because these don't achieve some ominiscient level of satisfaction or contribute to better health care.--Silverback 05:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not answering my points (as usual). Under a market system, resources are dictated mostly by selfish individuals with short-term goals. I've accepted that a communist nation is likely to set the wrong prices with regard to individual demand. But you're not considering the downside of the free-market system: which is that commodities that are inefficient at raising individual satisfaction in general can force the price of efficient commodities to increase. To follow your example, individual demand for decorative silverware will force the cost of X-Ray plates up in a free market, despite the fact that decorative silverware is grossly inefficient in comparison at raising individual satisfaction. Why is it that capitalist nations rely on communist structures to deliver basic public goods? --Csmcsm 20:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said, this is a theory, and should not be presented as fact, but as a theory advanced by some (perhaps many) people. I'm baffled as to why you would not want to reference this as the opinion of some notable politcal theorists. We don't need to argue about whether it is right or wrong, just say who claims it. Intrigue 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics, economics, and psychology

While what is referred to here on the wiki as communism isn't what I think of when I hear the word (I think of State Communism, i.e. pol pot & stalin), it does seem to be an important concept. This "communalism" is actually very agreeable to me as a spiritual person, I believe strongly in altruism. Unfortunately, these altruistic sociological theories only seem to work as far as the commune, and even then only when there is a solid religious foundation, and often a charismatic leader as well. Frankly, I think the people who desire to attempt Anarcho-Communism on a grand scale, or without a focus on God, have little comprehension of economics, psychology, sociology, or... history. They forget that the shiny idealism they believe so strongly in was once shared by those radicals who led to Stalin, Pol Pot, and every form of state communism. They forget that not everyone is altruistic, and indeed, that many are violent conquerors, or simply minor parasites, looking to revel in excess at the disadvantage of others. Every time I hear someone like Noam Chomsky speak, my mind wanders to visions of Black shirts beating political opponents and forcing them to drink castor oil, Snowball being chased from the farm by dogs, and Trotsky getting stabbed with an ice pick. No matter how pretty the utopia you envision, reality will always eventually step in. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? Read some more and you can dispel your own myths and misconceptions, if you wanna stop scaring yourself over something that isn't real.--Che y Marijuana 22:02, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Communist/Socialist, is that sure?

Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether European socialdemocracy, wich can be considered socialism even if of a moderate kind, does not involves public ownership of the means of production. And I don't think that there has been even one communist regime that has completely abolited private ownership, nor Karl Marx ever proposed to do that. Before the october revolution I think that the world communist was just a synonim of revolutionary socialist. After that it was used to refer to those socialists that had embrassed Lenin's ideas and that looked at the October Revolution as their political source of inspiration. juliet.p from Italy

Blaming the Resistance for a Revolution's Violence

This is almost a cartoonishly bad argument. Summarizing and paraphrasing just a bit, we're now saying, "some of communism's critics complainthat revolutions are bloody. To this communists reply: if the establishment didn't resist the revolution, it could all be done quickly and peacefully."

Yes, and if Haile Selassie had gone along, Mussolini's takeover of his country would have been bloodless, too. Does anybody defend the general principle that resistance as such is evil because it forces aggressors to get violent?

I agree that this passage should be deleted or rewritten at least. TDC 16:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Deng quote

I don't understand how the Deng quote needs contextualising, or how it is POV. We are reporting the judgement of many that China has made significantly pro-capitalist economic reforms; the quote is a support of this view. Don't interpret this as a challenge; I'm just genuinely confused, and don't understand the need for reversion. In the interests of accuracy, isn't the best approach to attempt to provide necessary contextualisation? Lacrimosus 07:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the quotation was, "Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious." Yet, the way it was inserted into the article seems to imply that Deng was dismissing communism and admitting the superiority of capitalism. Also, is his conception of what it means to be "rich" any different in China from the prevailing one in the West? One quotation, at any rate one that can be interpreted in multiple ways, does not illustrate a complicated phenomena that accompany China's development... This quotation adds nothing to the article other than confusion. (There are already links concerning Chinese economic reform that are sufficient.) Please remove it. 172 08:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he said it, at the time he was allowing market reforms, would indicate that he thought central planning, if not communism itself, was inhibiting wealth creation. The quote does not seem confuse any issues. If it seems a mixed message, perhaps that accurately reflects the state of affairs in the real world as well.--Silverback 02:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True, it is a complicated phenomenon, and it would be great if someone could sufficiently articulate its causes. I disagree with the reading that it involves Deng conceding to capitalism's superiority; I interpret it it as a change of views - it wouldn't be any more true to say that Mussolini by changing his opinions conceded to the superiority of fascism. Nevertheless, I will take out the quote, it'd still be nice if knowledgeable persons/people could talk more about the development of Maoist economics in China. Lacrimosus 23:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please no revert war, I've even included a Washington Times source for you. It's a perfectly apt and reasonable quote. 172, please leave your agenda behind. Libertas

Hammer & Sickle

The article itself seems to have become much better of late in respect of not identifying communism exclusively with Leninism and the former USSR, though there is some way to go in this respect. The use of the hammer and sickle logo and its description as 'the international symbol of communism' is an example. It wouldn't be regarded as such by left communists, council communists, most Trotskyites, Anarcho-communists and other advocates of a communist society (granted it would often depend on how far you were from 1917 when you asked them). The appearance of the hammer and sickle at the top of the banner advertising the communism series of articles is likewise inappropriate, given that that series contains many articles on schools of thought that were extremely critical of, if not hostile to, the USSR. Shall we consign it to the dustbin of history? Mattley 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explanations for the removal of Ultramarine's text

• Opponents of communism point out that the number of people killed are more than one hundred million. And that the methods used included concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides. [[24][25]
  • This is addresssed already in a way that avoids violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View with the following "...presiding over periods of repressive rule that saw tens of millions of casualties (see also Communist state)." In addition, you links have been added to the text. Further detail is found in the articles on the histories of the various Communist regimes and Communist state.
• And that they [concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides] took place in almost every communistic state.
  • This is a description of the Stalinist USSR, which saw a scale of violence and terror unseen in Communist regimes that came to power after the Second World War, such as Cuba.
• And in the Soviet Union continued even when that state was a superpower."[26]
  • The terror was abated significantly following Stalin's death, with Khrushchev's de-Stalinization. To make it clear that the USSR and other Communist governments were still nevertheless repressive single party regimes, but in a way that does not over-simplify history and violate NPOV, I added: "In the second half of the twentieth century, movements that threatened Communist Parties' monopoly on power, such Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring and China's Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, continued to be suppressed. Given these incidents and their often-violent histories, Communist Party-led regimes are often associated with human rights abuses, especially in the West."
• They also point out that every communistic state to date have been a dictatorship.
  • The text states, "Because they were governed by monopolistic parties..." Those who argue that every Communist regime has been a dictatorship base that on the fact that a single party has a monopoly on power, so this point is already addressed while following NPOV.
• Some supporters of communism claim that these states were in fact not communistic. Opponents claim that using the same argument, it is not possible to criticize capitalistic societies, as it can be claimed that apparently capitalistic states are in fact not capitalistic.
  • This is neither here nor there. They were Communist Party run states, and to dispute this would be more of a stretch than arguing that the world is flat. They were not "communistic" though (with a small "c"). Communism is a social system based on common ownership of all property, an ideal that Communist Party run regimes claim that they are attempting to realize, but one that never has been realized; and this cannot be disputed given every single definition of "communism" (small "c") available.

In all, note many of the recent additions under the "violence" section (formerly "revolutionary violence"-- broadened to include the entire span of their rule) that incorporate the topics that Ultramarine is attempting to bring to light. 172 00:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely people acknowledge that historically Communist states have held communist characteristics, even if they have not fulfilled Marx's dream of "true" communism (which, given the circumstances necessary, is utterly impossible) J. Parker Stone 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stick with standard definitions. Communism is based on common ownership of all property. Socialism is based on state ownership of the means of production. 172 03:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao. And that the deaths occured in almost all Communist states. However, the text is a marked ímprovement. Earler there were NO mention of the millions of killed, neither in this article or in that about Communist states. I will restore the last argument. The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property.Ultramarine 08:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property. This is covered elsewhere in the article. Keep in mind that there are also articles on Communist state, Marxism, and socialism. The Communism article is the on the ideology of Communism (large "C") and communism (small "c") as a social system; and it already veers way too off topic with discussions of socialism and the political history of various Communist regimes. Re: millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao Not in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev. Not in China under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao. Perhaps you are referring to Pol Pot's rule. 172 09:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read more history. Soviet Union [27] China[28] You seem to think that facts that contradict your view of the world are POV. But they are just facts, not opinions. Calling deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation for casualties is POV. I will change the statements so that the fact are clear. Do not censor them, even if you do not like the facts. Ultramarine 14:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not attribute this to POV. The reverts are more the result of problems posed by your non-native English, which is leaving this section a jumbled mess. The article goes into a sufficient level of detail mentioning tens of millions of casualties. The political histories of the relevant Communist regimes can be found in articles on the History of the Soviet Union and the History of the People's Republic of China. And, yes, it is POV to deny that the terror was abated significantly in the Soviet Union and China after the deaths of Stalin and Mao, respectively. 172 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then change the English. Do not censor the facts. You again insist that deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation are casualties? You have already demonstrated your lack of historic knowledge by claiming that millions did not continue to be killed after Stalin and Mao. Keep the facts so you and others can learn. Ultramarine 04:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a historian, so you can show me all the libertarian polemics and websites that you possibly can will not have shown me anything new to me. Writing NPOV is not just a matter of inserting "opponents say," "supporters say" anywhere you can possibly fit it but rather writing specifically and precisely. Internal exile and concentration camps in Siberia long predate the Soviet Union, as do mass starvations, so they are not unique to Communist rule. Thus, I will integrate your observations of famine and starvation into the article in way that maintains proper historical writing, specifically mentioning the Gulags and the famine coinciding with collectivization. 172 06:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very afraid to let others know that killing continued until the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, under Lenin, after Mao and in all Communist countries. Add that killings also took place in Russia before the revolution, but do not remove that they continued as long as the communists were in power. Why was there NO mention of the Gulags in the articles prior to this discussion, if you had knowledge of them? Ultramarine 07:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the finger-pointing. (Libertas?) I wrote only very small portions of the article; and this is not the article on the history of the soviet Union. 172 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made your point again in a clear, specific way. I added that the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, continued to be single party regimes that executed political opponents of the regime, though on a far smaller scale. 172 07:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Much better now. I disagree to "casualties". Which is " a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action". And if these states were not communist, then one can similarly claim that apparently capitalist states are not capitalist. Ultramarine 07:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I smell a Trot!

This article is filled with Trotskyist slants. Stalin suppressed ALL dissent? Find me a quote from Stalin where he actually says it is neccesary to "suppress all dissent". He may very well have done that, but that isn't part of Stalinism. In fact, there is no Stalinism. Stalinism is term invented by Trots for Marxism-Leninism. Trotskyism is a deviation from Marxism-Leninism.

• Just out of interest - are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party? Average Earthman 17:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"He may very well have done that, but that isn't part of Stalinism" Then, if Stalin did it, what is it part of? BTW, Trotsky said there was no such thing as "Trotskyism" and that the term was invented by Stalinists. Trotsky preferred the term "Bolshevik-Leninism". AndyL 17:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, you smell the truth. Bah, what does that matter if it were all or some? The fact that Stalin did it, is still there. And, further up, there is no Stalinism and there is no Trotskyism. It's just invidual interpretions of how Communism should be, made of them...although I prefer the latter. However; The article is neutral and is just telling history how it happened as neutrally as possible. Although I agree and changed it from "all" to "most".--OleMurder 06:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that Trotsky would want the term "Bolshevik-Leninism" when he spent most of his life attacking the Bolsheviks and Lenin, and only joined the Bolsheviks in July of 1917 (three months before the revolution) and still spent most of his time attacking Lenin. The solution, IMO, is to not use the term "Stalinism" when writing articles about those who upheld Stalin, or to reference it in such way as to clarify the meaning. Same should be done for Trotskyites if they feel that the term "Troskyism" is incorrect. BTW, Stalin hardly crushed all dissedents. IMO, he was a little too friendly and a good purging before his death might have prevented revisonism and the eventual collapse of the USSR, and we would have a lot more hope for the future today. --Mista-X 16:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"there is no better Bolshevik" Lenin on Trotsky.

economic critique

Not going to go into too much detail here, since it has been well covered elsewhere, notably by Karl Marx... Here is the addition made by Luis

• According to critics, communists forget, however, that the production process requires more than just labour: machines (i.e. "capital"). These machines have a cost, which has to be included in the price of the produced good. Indeed, a T-shirt can nowadays be either produced with lots of labour (for instance in China) or with many machines (in Europe). Modern economic theory would imply that both T-shirts should have the same price (since they are essentially the same), no matter how much labour went into them.

Communists don't forget that capital makes up part of the cost of production of a commodity, though they do see capital as 'dead' or 'congealed' labour. There is no conflict between Marx and "Modern economic theory" on the point you claim. Yes, these T-shirts exchange at the same price despite having required different amounts of labour for their production because, in Marxian terms, their value is determined by the average amount of labour required for their production. There are plenty of valid criticisms that could be made of Marx, but this one is just based on a misapprehension I'm afraid. See Wages, Price and Profit or Wage Labour and Capital for more if you like. They explain the Labour theory of value very cogently and address the assumptions you are making. Mattley 19:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does the theory explain how the congealed labor in the capital equipment just happens to come out equal to the labor in the labor intensive process? That coincidence sounds too unlikely to be true. There wouldn't be much point to the machines if they didn't save net labor in the long run.--Silverback 10:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you're driving at in that first sentence there. It isn't a question of amounts of labour being equal - because it is not the amount of labour in a particular commodity but the average amount required. In general, that is the point of introducing machinery: it means that a capitalist is temporarily able to produce commodities more cheaply than competitors yet realise a greater profit because he would be producing below the socially necessary cost of production for said commodities. This competitive advantage, in a real-world situation, would be of very short-duration, since competitors would also increase their capital-intensity. Is this not covered at Labour theory of value or somewhere? As for centrally planned states etc, I don't know. They weren't 'socialist', and if they claimed to be putting 'Marxian economics' into practices they were even more fraudulent than I realised. Mattley 12:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got your point. I won't put it back. However, what about the bureaucracy part? That critique seems rather relevant to me - after all it does not only apply to centrally planned states, but to any organization that has become too big. Luis rib 22:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gift economy and anarchism

There's no mention of the concept of a gift economy in this article, which I find quite surprising, because the concepts are almost the same. I mean, they could be used to clear up a lot of things which would normally take a lot of things to say, or if the concept wasn't even mentioned, then oh the horror!

Also, I find the fact that this article seems to distinguish too much between anarchism and communism. Can we consider anarchism part of, a branch of communism, whereas Marxist-Leninism is the other main branch? -- Natalinasmpf 22:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I tried my best to rework the article, it needs ALOT of work. But at least now it mentions gift economies a few times.--Che y Marijuana 03:21, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, the other concern is its elaboration of the idea of the gift economy's part in the movement in both the critique, and the response against it, and especially in the Stalinism vs Trotskyism area. -- Natalinasmpf 20:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Skyscraper example

Sorry if I seem annoying, but I find the skyscraper example rather bad. Maybe in the US skyscrapers are built entirely with private capital, but in other countries that does not seem to be the case. In the Gulf states skyscrapers are mostly built by state-owned companies. In Europe also the states have a lot of influence on skyscraper-building because of zoning laws, etc. Could the same point be made with another example? Luis rib 17:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggested links

The links which Ultramarine wants to insert are problematic for a number of reasons. Leaving aside the reliability of the sites in question for the time being, the intro to this article states that it is primarily about the theory of communism. It also states that For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state. This seems more than reasonable as a way of organising discussion of such an enormous topic. And since these links all discuss the abuses of Communist-Party regimes, they don't belong here. If we have all that stuff on the crimes of Communist regimes, then what is to stop someone adding links applauding Stalin's success in raising industrial production in the USSR etc. etc etc. It is off-topic. Why should they be here? Mattley 23:48, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An article about Nazism should have a short section about the human rights crimes. There can be a longer article also about these but they should not be censored in the main article. Furthermore, the real world failure of all attempts to implement Marx's ideas is extremely important for the theory of Communism in general. See my change of the Critique section Ultramarine 00:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the Nazism article discusses only the theory, much like this one, with short links to pages with more detail. That's the way it should be. As for the "scholarly works" you're linking to, some in gif format, they are discredited and worthless. At least the cato institute article criticizing communism I added isn't hosted at geocities.--Che y Marijuana 02:18, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Nazism article has an section about Effects with ha short description. Please show evidence that the links are discredited. Many are written by respected academics and published in academic press. Cite your sources! Ultramarine 02:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MIM responds to Black Book of Communism editor Mark Kramer. The editor himself admits accidentally using a percentage sign instead of per thousand sign, multiplying by 10 the numbers in one section. It's not exactly the most trustworthy source.--Che y Marijuana 03:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

As for the Nazism article, there is a small paragraph on it, but it makes no sense to drag it all into here. If we can't do it justice on this page, as it is a big page, it should be placed almost entirely on the other page.--Che y Marijuana 03:06, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

An error do not certainly discredit an entire book. And that is just one of many books. I will add a partial reference list. Ultramarine 03:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

from 1.6, to 16 percent of the chinese population, that's a huge difference. And my point is the whole book is disputed, there's far more in it that has been discredited, I'll track it down for you. As for the other links, none of them are even worth addressing, anyone who takes one look at them would understand. You list a site hosted on Angelfire! Scholarly my ass. Don't reinsert these, let's discuss a list of useful links here. I tried to find some, all I could come up with was the cato thing, but the black book and these other links are CRAP.--Che y Marijuana 03:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Cite your sources. What is wrong with other books? Most of them are published by academic press, many by respected researchers. Again, if you have something against this academic reserach, cite your sources. I will skip the link for now and only add back the academic research. Ultramarine 03:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concenrning The Black Book of Communism, the questions about its validity are addressed on its own page. The book is considered to be relevant by many people (incl., for instance, the French right-wing philosopher J-F Revel, in case you want an example). Also, it is quite well-known among the general public as being a book against communism. I don't see a problem in mentioning in here; any criticism of it should move to its own page. Luis rib 09:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the references. We already have a section which introduces the topic of human rights abuses by Communist states and refers the reader to the article on Communist states. Given that this article itself is supposed to be primarily about communism as a theory and future society, that seems more than fair to me. The introduction of these links and/or websites would

1) create an imbalanced article including too much material which is not wihin its scope.

2) endorse several definite points of view, namely that alleged communist states were indeed communist, that the abuses they committed stemmed directly from communist theory, and that any future attempt to bring about a communism society would inevitably lead to a repeat of such abuses.

We don't want a whole bunch of POV now, do we? Mattley 13:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removing POV

My last edit removed some blantant POV from the section on "Communist states." 'Executions, labor camps with high mortality, and mass starvations' have taken place in capitalist societies, but what would happen if one were to put the following in the article on capitalism:

Numerous human rights violations have been attributed to capitalist regimes. These include: executions, labor camps with high mortality, mass starvations caused deliberately and by mismanagement, and ethnic genocides. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is highly disputed; depending on the cited historical sources and on the answer to the question "what kinds of deaths can be attributed to the socio-economic system of capitalist or to the government supporting the capitalist system?", the death toll is perhaps as high as the hundreds of millions. Other widespread accusations concern the lack of freedom of speech in capitalist countries, religious and ethnic persecutions, destruction of historical and cultural heritages, environmental disasters, lack of democracy, restriction of emigration, personality cults, and inherited dictatorship, particularly under those of the fascist variety.

I hope that no one will attempt to put the above in the article on capitalism. That would be absurd-- just as absurd as allowing the content that I'd removed from the article to stay up... If people are interested in detailing a critique of Communist ideology based on the actions of Communist regimes, they will have to cite the research of authortative sources laying out a relationship between Communist ideology and the actions of political authorities in cases such as Stalinist Russia, Communist China, et. al. JMaxwell 21:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the following passage, I removed the bit in italics

Finally, some claim that wars, hunger and lack of elementary medical care, causing the deaths of millions, are the results of capitalist relations of production, making capitalism the single most violent socio-economic system in history. This view, however, is widely criticised, since most wars, famines or epidemics happened in countries that were not really capitalist.

Don't think anyone could really argue that war has not been a characteristic of world capitalism: think world wars one and two for a start, then add Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. As for famine and epidemics, note that this is not what the earlier section refers to. It talks about hunger and lack of elementary medical care, both widespread and devastating in the developing world despite the ability of the world to produce more than enough to supply food and medical care. Lest we are tempted to argue that such countries are not capitalist remember that this too is not exactly what the earlier section alleges. The claim is more precisely that they are the results of capitalist relations of production, ie, the fact that production is carried on for profit rather than to meet human needs. Mattley 23:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Korea was a capitalist war??? North Korea invaded the South! Algeria? Was a colonial war. Afghanistan? I remember some soviet invasion at some point... WWI and WWII? Please! Do not confuse imperialism (WWI) and Nazism (WWII) with capitalism! Your claim that capitalism is associated with war is a complete fallacy. Which wars were started by Sweden? By the Netherlands? By Canada?

As for the rest of your comment: the wide-spread poverty of the developing world, whose consequence is hunger and lack of medical care (among many other problems), is certainly not due to capitalism in America and Europe. How come Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and now China, managed to overcome poverty, hunger and other problems? Only because they embraced capitalism. What you do not understand is that capitalism can only produce profits because it meets human needs (i.e. because people buy what they think they need). The problem in Africa, for instance, is that international trade is often very reduced because of high import duties (preventing people from buying cereals and food in case there is a drought, for instance). Luis rib 23:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has already taken place in other talk pages, and there's no need to repeat it here. People looking for information on communism SHOULD find some reference to what happened in countries that officially claimed to be communist. The facts are not in dispute, in any case (there's just some argument on the precise number of deaths, etc.). Your comparison with capitalism is spurious, since capitalism is not as wide-spread as you claim. Certainly not all non-communist states are capitalist. Indeed, most African countries were not capitalist, and neither was Latin America (with the possible exception of Chile). Luis rib 23:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that capitalism is associated with war is a complete fallacy. I am not making this claim. My point is that all 'executions, labor camps with high mortality, and mass starvations' occurred throughout history in societies where private ownership of the means of production dominated economic output. However, whether or not there was a relationship to capitalism and these occurrences is not for Wikipedia to decide, due to the NPOV policy; instead, this is a matter to be taken up in social science academic journals. In the same vein, Wikipedia cannot assert a relationship between every occurrence under Communist regimes and Communist ideology... If you want to cite authoritative source making this claim, feel free to do so. At the same time, this claim must be balanced with other POVs. JMaxwell 01:57, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible crimes in Capitalist states is not the issue here here. It is human rights violations in the states rules by Communist states. For extensive academic references, Communist states. Please stop this historical revisionism. Ultramarine 03:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that you are misunderstanding my point. I brought up capitalism as an example in order to demostrate the shortcomings of the approach taken in the writing of the pargraph I'm calling into question. It is POV (and original research) to attribute every occurrence in a Communist regime to Communism independent of other historical factors, just as it is POV and original research to attribute every occurrence in a society where private ownership of capital generates the bulk of economic output to capitalism... However, you may be able to incorporate these observations about history of Communist regimes if you (1) do a better job presenting contending POVs and contextualizing the history and (2) citing authoritative research not just recording these occurrences under Communism but also stating inferences about the relationship between these occurrences and Communism. JMaxwell 03:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have given my academic references. Give your own if you think they are wrong.

As stated in the rewritten text, if one cannot critcze Communism for real-world consequences, then one cannot critcze capitalist states for real-world consequences. So I could remove all statistcs about wealth inequality in Capitalist states and state that this has nothing to with the ideal Capitalist society and thus should not be in an article about capitalism. Ultramarine 03:53, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have cited some sources (all anticommunist polemics) claiming that certain things occurred under communist regimes, but the paragraph that I removed does not make it clear what these alleged occurrences had to do with Communism. Again, by your reasoning, someone should be able to add the following to the article on capitalism:

Numerous human rights violations have been attributed to capitalist regimes. These include: executions, labor camps with high mortality, mass starvations caused deliberately and by mismanagement, and ethnic genocides. The exact number of deaths caused by these regimes is highly disputed; depending on the cited historical sources and on the answer to the question "what kinds of deaths can be attributed to the socio-economic system of capitalist or to the government supporting the capitalist system?", the death toll is perhaps as high as the hundreds of millions. Other widespread accusations concern the lack of freedom of speech in capitalist countries, religious and ethnic persecutions, destruction of historical and cultural heritages, environmental disasters, lack of democracy, restriction of emigration, personality cults, and inherited dictatorship, particularly under those of the fascist variety.

JMaxwell 03:59, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not cite some sources. I cite extensive adademic research. If you want to criticze capitalism, find the academic references and add that to the capitalism article. Do not censor this article. Ultramarine 04:02, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(1) Mentioning Rummel and the Black Book of Communism? You'd get flunked out of any intro-level college course by calling that "extensive adademic research." If that's considered high standards of "extensive adademic research," we might as well let someone start loading the article on capitalism with crap from Noam Chomsky and calling that the final word on the subject. (I'm not saying that the views of those authors do not belong in this article, just that they cannot be the final word on the subject given the NPOV policy.) (2) In case you ignored my comments earlier, my point is not to criticize capitalism but rather use the comparision as a teaching devise of sorts to illustrate the inherent problems in the approach taken in the pargraph that I am removing by applying it to another topic. (3) Please stop making personal attacks. Accusing someone of trying to 'censor' the article or engaging in 'historical revisionism' go against the norms of civility in online community projects. Please see Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. JMaxwell 04:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I state many other sources besside Rummel and the Black book. If you want to criticze them, give academic references and not hearsay. If you cannot provide the academic references, you are censoring. Ultramarine 04:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's a diversion. One does not have to make this into a debate forum in order to recognize that authors like Rummel are not the final word on the subject... You directed me earlier to the article on the Black Book of Communism, but that article contains references to research incorporating other factors for explaining the same observed phenomena; the paragraph that I'd removed from this article lacks this balance, and thus ought to be removed on grounds of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. JMaxwell 04:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From Communist states:

References on human rights violations by Communist states

• Becker, Jasper (1998) Hungry Ghosts : Mao's Secret Famine'.' Owl Books. ISBN: 0805056688.
• Conquest, Robert (1991) The Great Terror: A Reassessment Oxford University Press ISBN: 0195071328.
• Conquest, Robert (1987) The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0195051807.
• Courtois,Stephane; Werth, Nicolas; Panne, Jean-Louis; Paczkowski, Andrzej; Bartosek, Karel; Margolin, Jean-Louis & Kramer, Mark (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0674076087.
• Hamilton-Merritt, Jane (1999) Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992 Indiana University Press. ISBN: 0253207568.
• Jackson, Karl D. (1992) Cambodia, 1975-1978 Princeton University Press ISBN: 069102541X.
• Kakar, M. Hassan (1997)Afghanistan: The Soviet Invasion and the Afghan Response, 1979-1982 University of California Press. ISBN: 0520208935.
• Khlevniuk, Oleg & Kozlov, Vladimir (2004) The History of the Gulag : From Collectivization to the Great Terror (Annals of Communism Series) Yale University Pres. ISBN: 0300092849.
• Natsios, Andrew S. (2002) The Great North Korean Famine. Institute of Peace Press. ISBN: 1929223331.
• Nghia M. Vo (2004) The Bamboo Gulag: Political Imprisonment in Communist Vietnam McFarland & Company ISBN: 0786417145.
• Pipes, Richard (1995) Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime. Vintage. ISBN: 0679761845.
• Rummel, R.J. (1997). Death by Government. Transaction Publishers. ISBN: 1560009276.
• Rummel, R.J. (1996). Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917. Transaction Publishers ISBN: 1560008873.
• Rummel, R.J. & Rummel, Rudolph J. (1999). Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. Lit Verlag ISBN: 3825840107.
• Todorov, Tzvetan & Zaretsky, Robert (1999). Voices from the Gulag: Life and Death in Communist Bulgaria. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN: 0271019611
• Yakovlev, Alexander (2004). A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia. Yale University Press. ISBN: 0300103220. Ultramarine 04:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. We're all familiar with Rummel, Conquest, Pipes, and the bulk of these authors. Copying and pasting this list, however, is not a license to write a biased diatribe blaming everything occurring under Communist regimes on Communism independent of other factors, such as the social problems inherited from the old regimes... Incidentally, if a Marxist decided to apply your reasoning to the capitalism article, he could just as easily generate a list of Marxist academics who relate capitalism to the great power rivalries leading up to the First World War, the Second World War, and the rise of fascism, and then in turn proceed to blame all the horrors and atrocities of the interwar era on capitalism. JMaxwell 04:37, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please write this ñew section in the capitalism article and support it with academic references. It would start an interesting debate. But do not censor the academic research regarding Communist states. You have not given a single academic reference that finds an error in current text. Ultramarine 04:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The point that I am making does not require the presentation of extensive research. It should be readily apparent to just about anyone who passed high school history. (World History is a requirement in just about every American high school.) All of those watching this article should be expected to have enough of a grounding in the past to be aware of the fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred in noncommunist regimes, and were indeed all too common in both China and Russia before their respective Communist takeovers. That's the only premise of my argument that I am responsible for establishing. With that in mind, your work should be more contextualized and balanced by other possible explanatory variables, like the fact that both China and Russia were engulfed by utter chaos and anarchy before the Communists even came to power. (One would have to be pretty obtuse to expect any group forcibly establishing a new regime to restore order without a considerable amount of bloodshed.) JMaxwell 05:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add your observations, with academic references. The facts are clear and should not be censored. They showed that horrendous human rights violations took place in most or all of the states ruled by Communist parties. If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. For now, you have only made many claims without a single reference as support. Please read cite your sources and no original research. Ultramarine 09:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then you can read about the fallacy of the hasty generalization. I thought that you would be intelligent enough to realize that the paragraph was nothing more than a huge sweeping generalization without having to name-drop, but since you would rather continue playing games instead of respecting the NPOV policy, I can join you in this pissing contest and start listing off academics myself. For starters, Barrington Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy relates the class structure of the old regimes the political development of Communist regimes. Skocpol's States and Social Revolutions relates class and state structures of the old regime to political development. I cite these two because their works are the basis of established literature on this subject in comparative politics; if you are interested in other writers in this field, you can go ahead and do a search on Jstor yourself. JMaxwell 09:44, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. I am not setting out to do either of these things. This is a staw man and yet another diversion on your part. The problem is that you are refusing to accept any other possible explanation of these occurrences except Communism, which makes little sense when you consider the basic fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred at times in noncommunist regimes, and, moreover, took place at times in both Russia and China before the Communists came along. This is an example of how tricky it is to argue that these poltical patterns are caused by an economic system or an ideology, and why these explantions are for the realm of scholarly journals, not Wikipedia. JMaxwell 09:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You understate the magnitude of the situation, the countries themselves were slave labor camps since they shot people trying to escape, there is film footage of it happening for badness sakes! Denial of the right emigrate is perhaps the most basic human rights violation (for those allowed to live), we could perhaps tolerate some diversity in country oppressiveness if people were living there were doing so voluntarily, but denial of the right to emigrate trumps any apologia these regimes might offer for the measures they use.--Silverback 10:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) Are you denying that these crimes took place? Then give academic references 2) Are you saying that similar crimes took place in Capitalist countries? Then give references and write something in the Capitalism article. 3) Are you saying that all the crimes took place during the revolution and that there were no Gulags, terror or mass starvations long after this? Then please give references. You seem to think that crimes can be excused if there has been similar crimes before which is an absurd idea. It is like justifying Hitler's genocides by stating that the German empire earlier committed genocides in Africa. Ultramarine 11:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you speak English? How many times do you have to make the same accusations and say the same things over and over again? Reread what I wrote. If you want to justify these crimes, add your explanation. If you want to give similar charges against capitalism, do so with references. I am not setting out to do either of these things. This is a staw man and yet another diversion on your part. The problem is that you are refusing to accept any other possible explanation of these occurrences except Communism, which makes little sense when you consider the basic fact that the construction of labor camps, mass starvation, and repression of ethnic minorities occurred at times in noncommunist regimes, and, moreover, took place at times in both Russia and China before the Communists came along.... You want to claim that these things were caused only by Communism, independent of other factors, when in reality hisotry was more complex. JMaxwell 20:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are ignoring my questions and statements in more recent replies. I will go all the way to arbitration if there is any attempt at censorship of very well-documented historical facts. Ultramarine 21:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You keep on turn my statements into strawmen, attributing motives to me that I'm not working for. You asked for sources, and I gave them to you. There is indeed writing on China and Russia that does not attribute all the problems in those two countries to Communist boogymen... Go ahead and take this to arbitration. Your work is POV and you are acting unreasonable. I'm sure that will be evident to any less fanatical person. JMaxwell 21:09, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

None of your sources explain why the human rights violations by Communist states should be censored from the article. Add to the text that there is "writing on China and Russia that does not attribute all the problems in those two countries to Communist boogymen". This is no excuse for excluding the very well-documented historical research. Should the article about Nazism censor the human rights crimes because there are some books which have a different opinion? Ultramarine 21:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Damn you're being really dense. My point isn't to keep information out, just to balance it with more information, or get rid of it if the writers can manage to present it within the framework of NPOV. The problem is not necessarily what you are observing, but the lack of attention to other areas of academic literature when it comes to causation. JMaxwell 21:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then add the information, as I have repeatedly stated, with references. Ultramarine 21:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear JMaxwell. Since you ask in how far theoretical Communism is responsible for the crimes attributed to Communism, here's an explanation (documented in The Black Book, among many other sources). A) Certainly labour camps, famines, etc. existed before communism. B)In the case of labour camps, these persisted for the simple reason that the general population was opposed to the government and the policies it implemented (e.g. collectivization of land). C) Famines were directly linked to Communist policies. In China's case, the Black Book explains very well how the economic measures of the Great Leap Forward were the prîncipal reason of the famine (e.g. the prohibition to trade grain between provinces, the collectivization of land, the central planification, the reduced labour force following the forced move to industrial production, etc.). This is different from previous famines that took place before communism, and were due to indifference from the central powers. D) In the case of Cambodia, the genocide was directly the consequence of Pol Pot's interpretation of Communism (i.e. an agricultural communism, without money, industry, or services, and where individualism was suppressed to the point of prohibiting glasses), which he tried to preserve by assassinating or starving those that might have seen the flaws in his reasoning. E) You may argue that all these points are irrelevant since they don't reflect real (utopic) communism). This point can be countered by noticing that 1- utopic free market capitalism doesn't exist either; 2- until 1989, all communist parties, and most intellectuals that supported marxism, agreed that the Soviet Union and other countries were on the way of establishing communism; 3- from an economic point of view, many measures typically identified with communism were indeed implemented by Communist countries, with the consequences we know. Luis rib 21:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Save your breath. I have heard all of these explanations many times before. I am not saying that I necessarily disagree with them, but that the article should not be based on the above POV premises or other POV premises that recognize that every social and economic structure that has ever developed in China or Russia has had its inherent problems. JMaxwell 23:10, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have kept this on my watchlist, although I had taken a vacation from it for various reasons. The article seems somewhat improved; there is at least brief mention of the horrendous consequences of the Communist adventure. This introduction:

":This article is about communism as a form of society built around a gift economy, as an ideology advocating that form of society, and as a popular movement. For issues regarding the organization of the communist movement, see the Communist party article. For issues regarding one-party states ruled by Communist Parties (and everything associated with them), see Communist state.

represents, however, an attempt to distance the article from the realities of practical communism as we have known it in our lifetime and especially from the realities of being involved in the movement.

One note: This article is not about capitalism and the problems capitalism has. That material needs to go in the article, capitalism. Yet, the communist movement cannot be considered apart from capitalism as much of its energy comes from the consequences of capitalist organization of the economy. Fred Bauder 14:47, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

No, but neither is the capitalist article going to be mainly about the problems it has. The communism article is good for criticising capitalism from the perspective of a communist economic system. And cannot considered apart? You're basically saying that the immune system really shouldn't be considered apart from viruses, bacteria and cancer cells because much of the "energy" and evolutionary drive to develop an immune system comes from the consequences of pathogen organisation in the body? -- Natalinasmpf 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Utopian Communism

Whether we have an article utopian communism or not, that is where this sort of stuff belongs: "...communism itself is stateless in theory and thus cannot be related to the actions of 20th century states." Essentially this is propaganda and is, in fact, a violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This line served its purpose for bait and switch, but there was no sign any actual Communist movement took it seriously. Our article can include such theories but the bulk of it needs to refer to ideologies which existed or events which occured. Fred Bauder 16:04, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Dialogue

Sorry, this is not propaganda. This is the proposed ideology which drove other models forward, but the actual implementation became different. This is why there is a huge conflict between anarcho-communists and Marxists. Communism's original goal is utopia - "utopian communism" is redundant. Stalinism, in etmylogical terms, is not communism, but a derivant of it. This leads to many arguments. The collection of statements may be POV, but the entire NPOV policy is to represent all sides and arguments to give the reader an informed view. I reject the idea that it is a violation. -- Natalinasmpf 18:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same argument can be made about capitalism then. Luis rib 20:18, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but you see the Marxist line is that communism isn't utopian at all, because it is a real and existing tendency within capitalism. It isn't simply 'an idea' or an idealised future society precisely because it is grounded in and will emerge from the conditions of the present society, viz the struggle between the working class and capital. I didn't explain that very well I'm afraid, but Marx goes into some detail on the point in the Manifesto of the Communist Party where he contrasts communism with the Utopian Socialism of various French thinkers, and Robert Owen as well I think. I point this out for the sake of information mainly. Mattley 22:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same argument cannot be made about capitalism, as some starving, and some living in opulance, with no guilty consciences, is the ideal. "Greed is good" remember?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Of course the same argument can be made about capitalism. The reason why capitalism has certain "drawbacks" is because of externalities, interference of the state, lack of competition, lack of information by consumers, ..... One could go on. Perfect capitalism does not exist. But, like Marx, theoreticians have argued that if it existed, those problems would all be overcome. Of course, it is utopian. But it is the same kind of argumentation

With respect to the "greed is good" argument, communism also makes assumptions that are, at best, questionable. Why, for instance, should people that work harder, or that spend a few years at university, be happy with equivalent salaries to people who don't and who stop after primary school? Why, actually, would anyone even try to work harder in those circumstances? Luis rib 22:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, wages are irrelevant, there is no currency and there are no wages, it's a gift economy. Take for example file-sharing networks, vast gift economies in implementation, there's very few on them who give a damn how many songs the person downloading from them has shared. Anyways, as to "greed is good", I'm not criticizing it, I'm saying that Capitalist ideology in and of itself encourages profit as the goal to the exclusion of all others. It encourages a system where some fall to the bottom, and some rise to the top, that's not an externality, that is the basis of capitalism. In fact, it only gets worse as we push in the direction of less government intervention, as hospitals and schools become privatized and the poor are left to rot without any services.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 22:54, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning gift economy: how is it supposed to work on a national scale? If I want a pineapple, how will I get it in a gift economy? Do I have to go to eBay to see who is willing to give away a pineapple? Also, how does a gift economy encourage people to work and to give their best? They are not sure anyone will give them anything afterwards... Concerning capitalism and greed: the idea is that in "perfect capitalism" those that fall to the bottom work less than those that rise to the top. But "perfect capitalism" would assume that everyone has the same opportunities from the start - which is clearly not the case. Indeed, poverty itself is a reason why many people have too few alternatives. That's why any moderate capitalist will argue that the state should help the poor by providing help for better education and access to free (or at least cheap) medical services. In utopian perfect capitalism, those aids would not be necessary since no-one would be disadvantaged from the start (I know, it's a circular argument - that's why it is an utopy). Since utopias don't exist, some level of state intervention is necessary - the question is then to find the right level. BTW, getting back to Ayn Rand, that's why I said she's an extremist - she's arguing for something that cannot exist in this world. Luis rib 23:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, gift economies have been put into practice for periods of time, spain during the civil war/revolution for example, and have worked. Basically, it cannot work in a state system, it requires local, direct democratic, federated collectives. Think of the collective as a small polis, where people know each other, or at least well enough that they would notice if someone was being a total parasite. I'm the bartender, you're the guy who works at the automobile plant syndicate, and ultramarine is the baker. Or at least he's supposed to be. You come to me and ask for a beer, I know you work at the plant and the syndicate gives away its cars for free, so I give it to you. Ultramarine comes to me and asks for beer. But I know he hasn't been giving food for months, and lied to get himself an extra car. So I don't give him jack, cause everyone's been lenient and now it's time to put the foot down. I decide I'll bring it up at the next general assembly in the collective, and everyone confronts him about it. Of course, this can be aided by the use of technology, perhaps smart cards to track statistics of production and consumption, and the ratios, both at an international level and a personal level. Perhaps an automated process that would notify your neighbours if those stats reached a certain ratio? A kind of red flag telling them you've been swindling, and letting them confront you or redicule you for it? Who knows. Guessing how it would work is pointless, but it's not complicated really. -- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 23:21, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have a much better idea. I and some other progressive individuals decide to become pirates. The anarchistic society has no defence since an army and police would be the minarchist definition of a state. After getting rich on plundering I decide to invade some of the anarchist societies and to end my days as tyrant. Ultramarine 23:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except anarchists have no problem with these collectives training themselves and organizing themselves into decentralized, officerless militias, and don't give a damn what minarchists have to say about it.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 00:23, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The rogue statists applaud this decision. Their professional, high-technology expensive army will easily crush the "decentralized, officerless militias" and plunder the anarchist societies. Or even simpler, they might decide to use biological or chemical weapons to cleanse the areas. Ultramarine 00:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not a competition, I'm explaining to you the theoretical answers to your poorly understood challenges. The reality is, statelessness does not happen in a vacuum, though it may start in one place. Same with communism. IT would need to, and would, spread beyond any imaginary boundries statists have drawn in the sand. Revolutions have a tendency of going global when they go all the way. Much like feudalism is now nowhere to be seen, so too would capitalism and statism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 00:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

In essence you are saying the anarchism must implemented all over the world with no states left. Even if this somehow would become possible this still would not stop wars by aggressiv states. Because some of the anarchist communities might decide that it easier to take than to produce. So they organize and arm themselves for raiding on other communities. Since they concentrate all their resources on this they will be much stronger than the peaceful communities. Ultramarine 01:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why though? They are given what they need by other communities for free, what is the incentive?-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

But they decide they want all of what the other communities have. Or the women. See what happen with anarchistic groups of hunter-gatherers. Many of these communities makes constant war with each other. Ultramarine 10:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But you don't see, war is destruction. Destruction of goods that would otherwise been given to them for free, or in a gift economy to be amplified into even more goods. Why make war when you have peace and economic equality? And a decentralised army is superior: it is fluid and intangible to the enemy; nearly infallible. -- Natalinasmpf 21:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to dialogue

Yes, our article capitalism suffers from the same attempts by utopian advocates. Some claim no capitalist society has ever existed. Someone says it is not propaganda. That implies that a serious theorist might believe this utopian vision could in fact exist. I never met them in real life. What I enountered is people who insisted something good might eventually come out of all the effort, but made excuses for the imperfect contemporary examples. Let's pretend, in short. Fred Bauder 01:03, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, a lot of pure capitalist (aka laissez faire) economies have always existed. You can't compare "utopian capitalism" to "utopian communism" - communism was designed for utopia, capitalism was just meant to further the goals of one individual over the other. There is no proposed model for "capitalist utopia", because there was no such thing as a "capitalist manifesto", for instance. You have investment for dummies books, economics books or teachings on how to make money and discussion, but it was never to achieve utopia. Because the system's success is not based on how well the community does: just one individual. Hence, this does not apply. Communism - is an socioeconomic model. Capitalism is a purely economic system. True capitalist societies have always existed, true communist entities that took over countries have never existed. -- Natalinasmpf 02:26, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Natalinasmpf, but your argument is strange. If communism is an utopia, it means it will never be possible to establish it. Thus, it is impossible to judge its merits, and therefore to say if it's good or not. In a sense, Communism would be like the Garden of Eden - another quasi-religious myth. The problem with utopias is that you cannot criticise them and not falsify them. That exactly why utopias are not scientifically valid. Sure, you can argue that communism could be so much better, but you have no means to either prove it or disprove it. I could also argue that Communism is very bad, but again would have no means to prove it. Therefore, if we confine communism to its uropian version, we should rewrite the whole article and compare it to other such utopias - like the Garden of Eden. BTW your view of capitalism is clearly totally biased, but you are right in one point: capitalism is not an utopia, it's not an ideology. That's why it is not perfect - nothing is - but at least it tries to improve things (and it certainly improved things if you compare it to feudalism or tribal economies). Seeking refuge in an utopia may be nice, but it's just a way to avoid taking difficult decisions. Luis rib 10:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No means to disprove or prove it? Communism is a pre-thought economic theory, capitalism is more of labelling of a pre-existing formula, ie. chaos theory in economics. Communism is an economic theory and pre-conceived system,, and therefore the article shoud concern it as such. Capitalism is also an economic system, and should be perceived as such. You can't demand that only the material on real-life communism be implemented, because you are forgetting that communism doesn't need to be an economic system of a nation to count as a valid theory...free software, kibbutzes, anyone? The Garden of Eden is not an ideology based on sociopolitical science.

Avoid taking difficult decisions? Are you kidding me? Oh well, continue in your defeatist attitude, but the etymylogy still remains. Communism is an economic theory, which has real life implementations, capitalism follows something similar. As long as capital (assigning an absolute value to materials to invest in) is used, its capitalism. As long as there is a commune-based society, with the correct conditions (if someone compromises, it is no longer communism), that is communism. Communism just happens to apply in more narrow situations. -- Natalinasmpf 19:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communism compared to Fascism, etc.

I know this will anger many people here, but shouldn't there be a section comparing Communism to other ideologies which are viewed as totalitarian? Or, if not here, maybe on Communist state? After all, it is a criticism that is often made. Also, it appears on Fascism, so at least there should be a link to that page. Waiting for your comments... Luis rib 11:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, maybe on communist state, though I still wouldn't support that unless it was a criticism of the blurring of class lines under left and right forms of bonapartism (as stalin and hitler did), and its dangers as a barrier to progress and a road to totalitarianism. Speaking of which, I wonder if wikipedia has an article on bonapartism.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:12, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'll consider it for Communist state then. BTW, Stalin was y far not the only one to behave depotically; Lenin already exhibited such traits, though in a milder form. Also, Pol Pot was probably even worse than Stalin (at least in my opinion), and many of his policies had a Communist background: elimination of bourgeoisie (ok, he did it in a radical way), elimination of money, total egalitarianism (i.e. everyone had a number), ... Sure, it was a perversion of pure communism , but since pure communism is utopian, everything is a perversion. Luis rib 21:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying stalin was the only one. As for pol pot, he was also a bonapartist, and his main class was the peasantry, that was what led to the perversion. The peasantry is even more reactionary than the bourgeoisie if allowed to take power. But anyways. I do think that if we go into a deep discussion of why things went so wrong it would be a very useful addition. By deep discussion, I mean more than just "communism=against human nature=totalitarianism" :P-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the following: you (or somebody else) said that you couldn't take the USSR or China or Cambodia as an example of a communist economy because they had tried to implement it in countries that were not truly capitalist yet - and that's why it failed economically (let's forget about the human rights issues for a sec). Yet wouldn't that imply that if Communists want to succeed, they should support Capitalism in every way they can since they know that the more the society becomes capitalist, the sooner capitalism will crumble under its own contradictions and the sooner communism will emerge? Luis rib 10:45, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see this earlier, sorry. No, I don't believe I've ever said that you couldn't take them as communist for that reason, but in Marxist terms, that was a big part of why they failed. Cambodia I wouldn't even consider a Communist movement, let alone state. Both China and Cambodia began from the getgo with a bonapartist view favouring the reactionary peasantry (though cambodia abandoned this in favour of a brutal peasant dictatorship as soon as it could). The same peasantry that hates the cities, and longs for the old days. It is not their culture that places their economic interests in the camp against progress and the future, but their economic interest which create that reactionary culture. They are an obsolete class, and cannot play any major role in the march forwards. In Russia, they were involved (hence the sickle), but they were meant to be on the fringes until the proletariat could take over entirely. Of course, whether I agree with any of these strategies is not an issue, the reality is that whatever strategies were taken, none of these states were Communist because their "goal" was not achieved. That goal is more or less global abolition of class society, money and states. With a few minor exceptions, just as today there are a few minor semi-feudal pockets in the world.

As for supporting the bourgeoisie, back in their hayday, yes, support for their struggles generally meant support for their anti-monarchist, anti-aristocratic revolts. Today however, and in Russia this was particularly at issue, Capitalism has degenerated to the point where there is no motive to "rock the boat" for them much anymore. It is preferable to strike a deal with the despots, and graft capitalism onto despotism, rather than risk an explosion of democratic control. That role as democratizing force can no longer be played by the bourgeoisie. In third world countries, as Russia and China were and some say are, the bourgeoisie preferred to ensure that role for itself, the role of despots, by subordinating the country to imperialist powers rather than developing its infrastructure in any meaningful way. Those nations became nothing more than raw resource buffets, and never moved on. Looking at Russia, we can see that quite clearly, despite the huge problems, the tasks that the bourgeoisie were supposed to carry out were only possible under the control of a shaky alliance of proletariat and peasantry. Even today, the Russia bourgeoisie has still not moved beyond their stagnant nature. This is why today "supporting Capitalism" is not possible. Communists believe we are actually a part of those contradictions within Capitalism, at least a magnifying force. Wow... that was long, I hope it answers a few questions and makes some sense.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 19:10, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, in response to Luis' original argument, you're basically asking, shouldn't the immune system support viruses and bacteria and pathogens in every way because the they do so, the sooner the evolutionary drive to develop a better immune system emerges? The idea is to fight the pathogens, and so is the same thing for communism. -- Natalinasmpf 02:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarianism and Utopianism are Sociological impossibilities

Totalitiarianism is sociologically impossible, and has existed no where except in the works of fiction, and the minds of writers such as Orwell. Utopianism, which often seems to be similiar to totalitarianism; is the same. The terms should be totally striked from the article, atleast when talking of scientific communism, such as Marxism(-Leninism). --Mista-X 17:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which terms? The term "utopianism"/"utopian", or the terms classified as being "utopian"? Also totalitarianism, yes that is true, it means when the government has total control (to an extent), bu t the idea "approaching totalitarianism" could be a true statement. Generally, if someone is starving, but say, has only been starving for a week, and if no one continues to give him food, it would be correct to say he's approaching death, no? -- Natalinasmpf 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Communism is Totalitarian

Unfortunately, the commies here on Wikipedia prevent communism from rightfully being treated in the same manner as nazism and fascism. Therefore, the crimes of communism are whitewashed, rationalized and equivocated away.

--Unsigned comment by User:212.202.51.84 Slac speak up! 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC).

To be frank, it would be nice if the editing process on this page could be something other than a "dialectic" between communist-sympathetic and communist-antipathetic users. But I don't particularly think name-calling is going to help anything much. Slac speak up! 22:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Crimes? Or hijackings by state capitalists? -- Natalinasmpf 17:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The commies" That is just plain ignorant and babyish. Just because you may be a patriot of democracy or some such sh!t does not mean that you are right. As a matter of fact it seems that the USA tries to be totalitarian. They invade countries whose form of government they disagree with. Too bad that it was impossible for them to invade the USSR for all that time.

What Communism should be but rarely is:

I personally think that communism should be a group effort to survive in all cases. Maybe the reason that it ends up failing so much is that these days there is always surplus and therefore the people that live in the society don't feel a need to share anything. Communism should have no classes whatsoever. Everyone should get paid according to the value of their service. In other words a garbage man can make as much as a doctor because he helps to avoid the very thing that the doctor is trying to cure! Everything needs to be controlled and surplus Italic textmust be held backItalic text in order to use it when it is only most necessary. People in government would be the only "higher ups" because they are really the only ones that know what's going on and are providing the greatest service to the people. Everything would be shared. Take for example a city block. There are four houses on the block and the block has at its service several cars that can be signed out on a certain day to the members of one house, a house that they do not own! The state owns everything but you just use it. Obviously it would be different for small things that must be owned for their existence to make sense. Mass transit is a better solution for transportation issues. Although Lenin said that "any idea of a god at all is the most unspeakable foulness" religion should not be discouraged.

Questions or comments?

That's not communism, that's state socialism. Communism has no wages or money, and no state. Marxist Communism is also meant to efficiently use surplus and limit it to a certain extent, not abolish it. Surplus foods obviously would not be produced, whereas under capitalism enough food is produced to feed a world population 4 times this size. Which of course farmers are paid to burn, because prices would collapse if enough food for everyone was available. Under Communism, things are produced out of need, and not for profit, so the enormous surplus of food that is wasted would not be there, but neither would we be paying farmers to artificially create scarcity.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 21:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this would be environmental too, as well. Long-term comfort. Under capitalism, enough food is produced to feed the world population four times over but its not well distributed as well. That's the main thing, everyone could eat four times as much if well distributed, but then also cut down to say....save the soil for fertility, prevent overcultivation etc. You produce 4 times as much now, lose out 16 times more later. Bad thing. Hence a further concurrence with your statement, which I would agree with. But its not also produced out of need, but far-sighted comfort. That means its not based on an impulse for profit and ever-increasing stress, but for insightful comfort.

Oh... I see. In this world then it is impossible to have pure communism because the country would most likely be overun. Then there is only one necessity and that would be a state becuase there is no other way to keep up the society in a country and not have it overun. I also didn't say to eliminate surplus. I said to save it until it is necessary. Also when forming a communist "state" you couldn't start out right away with no money. You would need to bring it in gradually since all of your citizens would be used to the idea of money. It would be useful to indoctrinate the children into not feeling the need for money. How could you prevent people from just taking advantage of free luxury items anyway? There is a need for money in the beginning but after that it can be eliminated.

The country would not be overrun. In pure communism, the concept of a country would be abolished. Why have a country? Nations seem "normal" because its been there all your life and you can't imagine a system without one, but you should realise that, a country has no real benefit at all. The unity and co-operation, and cohesion of a country can be implemented through society: the sense of a nation at all isn't beneficial. People fight for a nation and a state for an irrational reason and no true reason like "it benefits the society", family, or policies. Ie. communism would prefer fighting to defend your culture, your values, the economy, but not a nation. If the government goes awry it wouldn't encourage loyalty to it, whereas a nation would. This is why communism is anti-nationalistic, thus anti-Nazi. Note that a government doesn't mean a state - in communism it would be self-government with peer management, rather than having any leaders (but possibly speakers with no more power than the average citizen, but with the duty to inform and argue for or against a policy). In a communist society, one can start out without any say, central budget. Rather what happens is you give gifts to each other without accepting payment. Then the recipients and givers extend their circle, say, I start giving software, food, housing, without paying money. The farmer would give free dinners from his livestock, then say, one of them is a computer maker. The computer maker appreciates the gifts, and say, gives free computers to automate say, the chicken producing process. This benefits both farmer and the community, who receives more food, gives more to the farmer, who the community benefits, would also appreciate the computer maker, the software developer, the architecht building the automated chicken house... The ultimate could be when the circle is enough to say, overthrow without violence at all: it has become the majority of the population who can choose not to comply, not to pay taxes. But of course the participants have to have money, just that the society doesn't need a central treasury. Also, there's no need to indoctrinate, you can slowly absorb adults.

Indoctrination? Too much capacity for abuse. -- Natalinasmpf 23:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Productivity falls as you increase taxation. People do not work to pay taxes. I have worked harder in the SAME job as my 'ciggarette break' taking collegues do. Thats why i should be payed more, because i work harder, i do twice as much as these young layabouts. Money is reward for hard work. People will always expect payment, women will sell their bodies for favours if you abolish fair payment and men will always gamble. Communism will fail because men like me will always exist. Communism failed for these very reasons, oh and remember under who's 'reign' the Gulag was begun. The leadership of china seem very wealthy. Just like George Galloway in his Second home in portugal! There has never been a true socialist in power. Power corrupts comrades. Welcome to the real world. -- (Unsigned comment by 81.132.70.251)

Yes but the idea of communism is to abolish the state. Not increase taxation. Who gave you idea about increasing taxes? Furthermore the idea as taxes increase, so the amount of benefits you receive from the state. However this results in some central planning, abuse and inefficiency, which is state socialism, aka Leninism, which is not what true communists advocate. Plus, you are an age discriminator because you assume that the younger are less experienced and therefore less skilled, this is such a untrue thing (intelligence over experience)...but that is irrelevant. In a communist society, you are APPRECIATED more for hard work, hence receive more gifts. Read the actual article, and actually read, will you? You cite the Soviet Union, China, gulag, etc. but let me remind you that is state socialism, and even state capitalism, therefore contrary to the true ideal and (whose governments all true communists, anarcho-communists despise). Leadership of China is wealthy because it is capitalist. There has never been a true communist in power because true communists do not seek power, but seek comfort - in peer review, a gift economy, and lack of stress, caused by an egalitarian pursuit. Those who a power-hungry aren't true communists because they are short sighted and repress their populace, which is short-sighted, and they lose our spiritually and intellectually in the end. Because they suppress the amount of amplified returns the receive through a gift economy. Communism advocates a GIFT ECONOMY. Bolsheviks, Stalinists, Maoists and Leninists and other hijackers of the cause are state capitalists who tried to seize the oppurtunity to sadistically repress the cause, not true communists, are evil, should be despised and ridiculed and be done away with for all I care. Communism does not advocate an all powerful state, nor a "dictatorship of the proleteriat". This is inane. "Communist state" is oxymoronic. -- Natalinasmpf 04:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Communist state" is indeed a contradiction in terminis, as Lenin repeatedly points out in his book "State and Revolution". Socialism is the "dictatorship of the proletariat", which is a transitional system in which the majority of the people - the ex-oppressed - oppress a minority - the ex-capitalists. When this socialist state has "died off" (which of course until now has never happened because no socialist state in history has survived for a significant time), we get communism. Socialism is a necessary phase because of the inevitable counter-revolution of the former ruling class. However, I would not say Bolsheviks and Lenin are "hijackers of the cause", although I completely agree to decribe Stalinists, Maoists in this way, and of course all kinds of reformists and opportunists. It is also true that many people who call themselves "Marxist-Leninists" (like Stalin!) are in fact Stalinists, and hijacking marxism. I suggest you read what Lenin wrote on this topic. -- Jon Sneyers, April 30, 2005

I disagree about the socialist transition state being necessary. Why do you need to implement a state? When the revolution has taken power, isn't it true the framework can be formed right away? A gift economy forms immediately after seizure of former state resources. Or it can happen without a revolution, but rather a gradual assimilation into communism. (Ie. you establish a commune that still pays taxes and everything, then slowly recruit, then finally it gets so big one day the commune declares the abolition of the state and is strong enough to destroy the state, because the society that supported the state now is in the commune.) Isn't it true, that as a common soldier who fought in a revolution, that as an egalitarian revolutionary, you have a right for a voice in the government rather than having the leaders of the revolution? Isn't it true that oppressing the bourgeoisie leads to a bad response? The idea is equality, not forming a new tyranny. Shouldn't a direct democracy be established of sorts, as it becomes a decentralised community? By treating the former oppressors as equals, you bring them to your side. True, they were once your enemies, but now they are powerless. If you respect their rights, they will start to contribute...think of Wikipedia's "assume good faith" idea. Repay evil for good, and you lump hot coals on your enemies' heads and make them a footstool for your feet. This also avoids the slippery slope when it comes to defining the bourgeoisie. When you can oppress one group of people, the definitions can be expanded by the state to many others. That is the problem. You don't even need a state in the first place. You can implement principles and incentives that will coerce the bourgeoisie into cooperating like everybody else, but not having to oppress. -- Natalinasmpf 21:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You sound rather utopian, and do not seem to understand/agree with dialectic materialism. Do you honestly think that there will be no contra-revolution because you are gonna be "nice to the capitalists"; treat them as equals (and taking back their means of production and their profits). Don't you think the working class has to organize itself in a centralist and democratic way to defend the revolution? Wouldn't cause an immediate change from capitalism to a gift economy people to stop working and take more than they need? I suggest you read what Lenin wrote in "State and Revolution". -- Jon Sneyers, May 1, 2005

Utopian? To the contrary - I am actually discouraged and currently view the only method for a communist society to occur is not through dictatorship of the proleteriat but an immediate gift economy. Peer pressure can work immediately and suppress the materialist sentiment. Should a violent counter revolution occur, we have the right to take up arms against them, but otherwise no, we'd be hypocritical. We have to organise ourselves in a centralised and democratic way but as we start making economic policies we shift into decentralised gear. However, there must never ever be a dictatorship of any kind, there must never ever be a constitutional monarchy of any kind, not even a representative democracy - it must be close to a direct democracy as possible. -- Natalinasmpf 23:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lets analyse the word "communism" shall we? "Commune - ism" - ideology of the commune. Does it SAY anything about an authoritarian government? No. Does it say anything about dictatorship of the proleteriat? No. But what does it say? "Common" can be traced from "commune"! A community! A peer-based economy! A peer-based government! So please stop confusing communism with Leninism, Bolshevism, Pol Potism, or any other repressive ideologies. Leninism, etc. is an attempt to hijack the communist cause into making its the naive blindly commit themselves to a totalitarian state, and an act of perjury, slander, libel and defamation. That's right, the hijackers of the cause are slanderers and liars as well as human rights abusers. Communism is anarchism (just different aspects of the same ideology), and should not be confused with totalitarian ideologies. Totalitarians like Stalin, Trotsky (who was really evil anyway thanks to his actions at Kronstadt), Lenin (who dissolved the Duma, his soul can burn in the lake of sulfur), Pol Pot, Castro, etc. can get their souls tormented for all I care. However true communists like say...Emma Goldman are the real kind of communists who people ought to recognise as actual communists. (Note, I do not advocate posting this in the main article, I am just replying tit for tat to reactionary arguments, since you post your opinion, I post mine). -- Natalinasmpf 04:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OleMarxco from RevLeft here, in the hood. Well, me thinkesth that a real Communism has a decantralized system of control totally unlike what Soviet and China practised (which I look upon as State Capitalism - more like "Capitalists of the world, unite!") and also needs to go trough a stage of Capitalism first since industrialization must be follow trough the order that Marx wrote. Russia went straight from Feudalism to Communism, obviously that would not work. It insisted to both keep the STATE, a VANGUARD PARTY as some class -over- the proletarians, and were DEFINATELY not Communism. And communism is DEFINATELY not Anarchism, anarcho-Communism is an oxymoron: Anarchy is like "invidual over the group", Communism is collectivized communes working togheter in a perfect balance of industries and equal treatment of the people before the law: One being rewarded with material possesions proportional with your involvation in society. Excess money is flattened out to everyone, and abolished: It is impossible to "buy" oneself out of an encounter with the law by buying tricky lawyers. Therefore, there is no "classes", that is, so unlike the totalarian wannabe-Communisms, when there is a loss of resources, the weakening does not create a "scism" and a "crack" seperating people, one resources tilting to one side of society over the other, creating differences in wealth. It would decrease at society as a whole. All work is optional, but is rewarded by getting everything by rations the sooner the more you CHOOSE to work (Thus removing some people getting more money than they work for society! And no "inheriting"!)- Wherever you want, it is job rotation so you don't have to work somewhere solely to produce more than needed, but where you are needed. That is Communism - a very noble vision, indeed. But...spoiled. Capitalism is STILL not good enough, it is currently now bosses over workers, and the first world over the third world! EXPLOITING. BAH! Long live the hammer and the sickle.--OleMurder 16:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But ah, don't treat Marx like dogma! Sure he had the right spirit, but not necessarily an entirely correct theory. Just as Newton wasn't totally correct with his idea of gravity (its relative to the space time curve, not just a simplistic force), I feel Marx is only partially correct. Industrialisation isn't needed for a successful society to occur - you set up the society first, THEN you industrialise. Anarcho-communism is hardly an oxymoron: anarchy is the "no individual has more power than another individual", power in the sense of ecopolitical oppurtunity power, not stressing that individuals should do whatever they want and run rampant with anomie. One is rewarded with economic and social resources in a gift economy for involvement in the community and thus being appreciated. Because money isn't used, no hoarding, abuse, poverty cycles and the like occurs. Communism has no higher state to enforce the law: it has principles. PEERS enforce laws. This prevents abuse from ever, ever happening (unlike the compromise of representative democratic socialism which has loopholes for abuse and plutocracy to occur). In an anarcho-communist society, there will probably be the scheme of ostraca, but in a more highly implemented form to say, provide an incentive for working for the food you receive freely. Else, people can just break off giving gifts to you. And since this isn't regulated centrally or by a higher power, there isn't any abuse. A gift economy has no "rations" - gifts are left to discernment. Contribute little, receive little. Contribute a lot, a lot of resources are used to invest in say, farming, technology, which produces more, hence growth, hence you win out by giving more, since the risk is very low. No one executes one another for not working (but except in cases of armed conflict or murder) because freedoms are respected. You cannot "ration" out rewards. It is left to the peers. If you don't work, people are disgusted at you and don't give to you. But the thing is, its based on empathy, rather than rigid laws. When its decentralised, its more flexible and people can sense the circumstances. For example, if you just lost your parents and your gift giving falls 50%, most people are generally going to be sympathetic. In a rigid law based society this probably wouldn't happen too much. Economic flexibility => higher economic growth => harmony et al. => decentralisation means harder to be attacked by enemies, easier to attack enemies. (Anybody who playes Weiqi knows this. Fluid! Formless! And your enemies will not know where to attack.) -- Natalinasmpf 20:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That is all very helpful and very LOGICAL!!! I don't see how capitalism even survives really. Lenin was partly right in that a communist revolution needs to happen everywhere at once to stay alive. Screw the thing about underdeveloped countries helping developed countries into being communists. Everything that has ever been called communism in human memory has been Capitalistic State Socialism! The reason the USA was so adamant about destroying "communism" was because the term was being missaplied to State Socailism. Communism would be the best thing that could ever happen to a society. But because of the USSR, China, North Korea, and Vietnam communism (which was actually state socialism) has made a bad name for itself. I seriously doubt that nearly anyone who thinks that they know what communism is really does know what it means. When people refer to communism they think "Communism= USSR= Evil!" If anyone knew what communism really was they would all (hopefully) join a movement. When setting up communism there would need to be mild administration at first until everyone got themselves organized. (and the politicians of this world are killed.) And now that i know what communism really is... I luv it!

That's why I hope all of you will help me overthrow the US government by educating the proletariat! God, I hate capitalism. Who here is with me? Email me at "[email protected]"!-- Terre Lotliby

Aye, you have my support I suppose. There is time for a change, and the hell away from all this Neo-Con bullshit we've gotten weaved into now. Hooray for revolution, and let us not repeat the previous faults! No Vanguard Party! Go Communism!--OleMurder 22:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Well Ole... One reason I would not join your cause is that I feel no reason to work to the collective good. I LIKE working to better me and mine. I like getting money for "frivolous" things, such as my Harley, that mean a lot to me but might seem luxurious to you. Why should I give up these things for some dubious vision of the 'greater good'? Tom S.

Good edit

Good edit User:Natalinasmpf, you are quite correct. The soviet union wasn't much of a dictatorship after Stalin, and China isn't really a dictatorship either. Sam Spade 10:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarian is a term that is itself questionable, not just in this case, but in general, as it serves nothing more than a propaganda purpose. It defines dictatorships that keep the economic status-quo as authoritarian, and dictatorships that don't as totalitarian, which is rediculous. The use of the term totalitarian here is improper. Furthermore, I think that part of that paragraph should sijmply be moved to the communist party or communist state pages.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Um... What are you trying to say? If you're making a point, dont you think that your point would be better advanced through clear language and open reasoning? Tom S.

I think your POV is pretty clear, you wear it on your shirt sleeve and all ;) Sam Spade 21:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on totalitarian. The term itself is in dispute and POV. Hence using it is akin to using "terrorist", it's something we should avoid.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

And what's wrong with "terrorist"? Both terms are usually clearly defined, and only through attempting to not offend the person/groups to which the terms are attached do they lose their meaning. "Terrorist" is one who, through raising "collateral" targets to the primary level attempts to advance a cause through fear and/or chaos. "Totalitarian" is a governmental entity which attempts total (hence TOTALitarian) control over any regulatable aspect of life.

I demand that all previous self-proclaimed "Communist"-countries gets moved instead to "State-Capitalism". That goes for both China and Soviet. At very least these were awkward socialist states with a insane vanguard party gone strait from Feudalism.--OleMurder 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I demand $1,000,000 and a helicopter! Sam Spade 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Once I get the $1,00,000 and find the appropriate helicopter. :) Tom S.

My Two Cents (A Prcing Pun)

What it all comes down to is that every experimental or serious attempt at Communism, large and small, has for a variety of reasons, failed. Capitalism is still going strong. When the whole Capitalist juggernaut goes Kablooie, then Communists may have room to criticize it... IF they ever get their thing going. Tom S.

Somehow almost all the states and societies that attempted socialism or communism or something similar collapsed. Yet capitalist states thrive despite (or because?) all their decried failures. Is there some lesson to all this? Even my former student residence - where some kind of communism had emerged during my first two years - collapsed into chaos after the fourth year. I must say this rather personal experience of the failure of communism has convinced me that it is unworkable in reality. Luis rib 5 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Good edit

Good edit User:Natalinasmpf, you are quite correct. The soviet union wasn't much of a dictatorship after Stalin, and China isn't really a dictatorship either. Sam Spade 10:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarian is a term that is itself questionable, not just in this case, but in general, as it serves nothing more than a propaganda purpose. It defines dictatorships that keep the economic status-quo as authoritarian, and dictatorships that don't as totalitarian, which is rediculous. The use of the term totalitarian here is improper. Furthermore, I think that part of that paragraph should sijmply be moved to the communist party or communist state pages.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 18:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Um... What are you trying to say? If you're making a point, dont you think that your point would be better advanced through clear language and open reasoning? Tom S.

I think your POV is pretty clear, you wear it on your shirt sleeve and all ;) Sam Spade 21:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the article on totalitarian. The term itself is in dispute and POV. Hence using it is akin to using "terrorist", it's something we should avoid.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 02:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

And what's wrong with "terrorist"? Both terms are usually clearly defined, and only through attempting to not offend the person/groups to which the terms are attached do they lose their meaning. "Terrorist" is one who, through raising "collateral" targets to the primary level attempts to advance a cause through fear and/or chaos. "Totalitarian" is a governmental entity which attempts total (hence TOTALitarian) control over any regulatable aspect of life.

I demand that all previous self-proclaimed "Communist"-countries gets moved instead to "State-Capitalism". That goes for both China and Soviet. At very least these were awkward socialist states with a insane vanguard party gone strait from Feudalism.--OleMurder 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I demand $1,000,000 and a helicopter! Sam Spade 11:23, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Once I get the $1,00,000 and find the appropriate helicopter. :) Tom S.

My Two Cents (A Pricing Pun)

What it all comes down to is that every experimental or serious attempt at Communism, large and small, has for a variety of reasons, failed. Capitalism is still going strong. When the whole Capitalist juggernaut goes Kablooie, then Communists may have room to criticize it... IF they ever get their thing going. Tom S.

Somehow almost all the states and societies that attempted socialism or communism or something similar collapsed. Yet capitalist states thrive despite (or because?) all their decried failures. Is there some lesson to all this? Even my former student residence - where some kind of communism had emerged during my first two years - collapsed into chaos after the fourth year. I must say this rather personal experience of the failure of communism has convinced me that it is unworkable in reality. Luis rib 5 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

uh... that's what I said, aint it? :op Tom S.

yep. Was just agreeing with you. Luis rib 6 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Crit. Section

Is this supposed to be serious criticism? These sentences were some of the worst offenders:

Some also point to the chimpanzees and other primates...

What kind of chimpanzee? Common chimpanzees and bonobos have extremely different behaviours, although both are far more genetically similar to each other than they are to humans. The reference to other primates seems a little too vague.

The so-called selfish gene view of evolution is that natural selection acts on genes rather than collectives

This is a misrepresentation of the "selfish-gene" theory. The "selfish gene" theory says nothing about how the individual should behave. What it says is that genes evolve in a way that helps to propagate their own survival regardless of the positive, negative, or neutral effects on the individual or group. If cooperation helps all the individuals involved, and thus helps to maximize the distribution of those individuals' genes, then cooperation will evolve (remember even in the selfish gene theory it is still the individual that must survive and propagate). This misrepresentation is so egregious that it begs for a citation.

Much of the criticism section seems to just be the POV of the editors here, is there any sources for this criticism? If not, I might start deleting some of the obvious garbage within the next few days. millerc 8 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

"Communism" or "communism"

It should be mentioned, but it certainly doesn't belong in the "future" section. Where should we put it? --Kennyisinvisible 9 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Communism a branch of socialism???

"As a political movement, communism is a more radical branch of the broader socialist movement. The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through their wish to completely do away with all aspects of market society under the final stage of the system ..."

Erm, unless I'm sorely mistaken Socialism is a branch of Communism, not the other way around. --Kennyisinvisible 9 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

Yes, communism is a branch of the socialist movement. The idea that socialism is a branch of the communist movement comes from the idea that it's a compromise for communist systems, which it isn't. Rather, communism is the most extreme branch of the socialist movement. However, Marxist-Leninism tends tends to go towards populism, while Kroptokin and communist anarchism is the most extreme branch of the libertarian socialist movement. Socialism has other movements (besides social democracy, which is probably what you're thinking of, democratic socialism (which is actually different), a form of bourgeois socialism (to appease), and various other forms as well. -- Natalinasmpf 9 July 2005 18:01 (UTC)