Talk:Communist state: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:15, 16 February 2008

POV

L.S.

This article is dubious. Why? There are too many opinions involved, too many subjective sources (whether they're sources or not: a bad source is a bad source) and too many opinionated conclusions. I would like to ask every serious wikipedia-editer on this page start looking sceptic at both pro- as anti-POV's, and delete them when you have a mere reason. Do add it to the talk-page, so that others can react incase of injust. We were all instructed to be harsh on un-sourced and "POV-ed" articles in the wikipedia-policy mail which we received. So let us do so. --83.84.138.101 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide??

What is this nonsense about communist states and Genocide? This article should be about the idea of an communist state, not of the failure of some. And if so; then write it in a subsection. Let's not start about the "Capitalism and Iraq thing" shall we..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.138.101 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense? Your genocide denial because the sources provided were not pro-communist sources? I've reverted your edit and placed a warning on your talk page for removal of sourced content. Get out of your little communist fantasyland and join the real worl, in which communists are the biggest killers, before editing again. Argyriou (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...Whoa, whoa! Don't get so upset! Just ask him for his proof. I may be new here, but I still think that there should be some civility here. (And how do you sign these comments?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.60.88 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argy, please read the Wikipedia guide-lines, about sources. Also, maybe something about objectivity? There's no need for you to attack my person at all and I find it very much childish that [b]you changed my original comment[/b] - I did not write down "genocide state" but "communist state". I will go to a moderator if you continue this. Don't feel offended - you might think that the best skippers are standing on the shore - but, indeed, talk. This is is a talk page. Please do ask for my proof. Untill than: the article is restored --83.84.138.101 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not change your original comment. Argyriou (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You state: This article should be about the idea of an communist state, not of the failure of some.. That's incorrect. This article is about the theory and practice of Communist states. That includes the failures of Communism, which include, as a very significant feature of many Communist states, genocide. As many beleive that genocide is not an accidental feature of Communism, and there is thorough, reliable, and significant documentation of deliberate Communist genocide, it is entirely appropriate to mention that in the lead of the article. Trying to remove any mention of genocide, or to confine it to a sub-section, is as blatantly POV as not mentioning anti-semitism in the lead of the article on Nazism. Argyriou (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, Angry you, that's not how we play the game - the urge to destroy that which we cannot tolerate is as unbecoming on you as is was on Stalin or Pol Pot. I, for my part, may rest easy in the knowledge that my magnificent sense of humor (and legitimate criticism of your source material) is preserved for the ages, but don't let our little lover's spat cause you to delete the commentary of innocent bystanders - they didn't bother you that much two days ago...Calzero (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all your flippancy, you don't actually say much. In particular, for all your derision, you never once explain what is wrong with Rummel's compilations, or why they should not be taken seriously. As you haven't actually contributed anything of use to this article, I'm not going to take anything you say seriously anymore.

I will again delete the statement about Genocide. Why? Because Genocide means "whiping (read: trying to whipe out)" people - based on etnical reasons (Holocaust). Yes, this did occur in the USSR when Stalin's anti-seministic thoughts broke out. But did this happen in Cuba? Did this happen in North-Korea? Did this happen anywhere else (Tibet disputable though!)? Genocide - based on etnical (or religous) reasons? No. It is wrong to characterize this with "the Communist States". You're reasoning Argy is totally wrong. It is wrong to think that just because the Supermarket is selling eggs, that it also lays them! Yes, I give: revolution mostly is paired with mass-murders - but that's apple. We're talking about peares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.138.101 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extermination of the kulaks is a genocide, as is every other Communist attempt to wipe out members of the productive classes and their families and relatives. Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. However, as the "in part" is arguable, I'm going to restore the text, replacing "genocide" with "mass murder". Argyriou (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a part so americans/capitalist genocide iraqeni, vietnamites, japanese, germans, italians, redskins and many others?--Francomemoria (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes Argy - finaly logic is starting to take over - but not quite. A Communist State does not mean that the State is Communist - it can also be mean that a Communist-party is ruling it (see paragraph below). Mass murder does not occur in those states. Yes, mass murders did occur, but these were more because of Social-economic instability, than by Communism. You still seem very reluctant to understand where this article is about. We already have a dozen pages on wiki concerning mass-murders, you can link them - however, don't characterize the article with them!--83.84.138.101 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist states are also known for mas murder of their citizens, sometimes amounting to millions of deaths." - I'm sorry Argy, but this still isn't acceptable. You're kind of generalizing. Do you chop down all the trees when one leave falls on your head?...

So not all communist states are communist states?

"Communist states may have several legal political parties, but the Communist Party is constitutionally guaranteed a dominant role in government." If a state has a communist party governing it, is it not a communist state even if other parties would be able to take the communist party's place in the government?-- 213.67.208.186 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other parties were not able to take over, because in all cases the minor parties did not compete with the CP for power, they worked with it. There is only one historical example of a socialist (not communist) state where parties actively competed with one another within the united front. —Sesel (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sattelite state / client state

It seems to me as a classic POV to refer to those in the soviet sphere of influence as "sattelite state" (negative connotations) and to those in the american sphere of influence as "client state" (neutral connotations). Other Opinions ?-- ExpImp^{talk con} 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term client state is not used within the current form of this article. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is classic POV to call American allies "client states", when most were not taking direct orders from Washington, the way the Soviet sattelites were. Argyriou (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Defunct Communist states

I think the chart listing defunct Communist states should be restored as it's quite useful, particularly as it also lists ruling parties, and as all the states listed are mentioned in the body of the article (if it's not original research to mention them in the text, it shouldn't be to list them in a chart). General Idea 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The table was a hub of original research: there were no sources to suggest that historians refer to those former states as "communist states." Also, this article is about a formal constitutional structure known as a communist state, not about particular countries or regimes and their histories. -- WGee 07:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it original research if it just charts information that's already listed in the article? General Idea 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a list of defunct communist states in the article, and it wouldn't matter if there was one either because there were no sources (see WP:V). -- WGee 05:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General Idea, the chart was a hub for original research because it encouraged editors to list terms associated with various events that did not refer to entities widely recognized by historians and political scientists as "states," such as the "Soviet Republic of Naissaar," the "Limerick Soviet," and the "Azerbaijan People's Government." It also encouraged editors to frequntly add regimes such as Nicaragua under the Sandinstas and Granada before the 1983 U.S. invasion, which had not clearly established constitutional structures formalizing single party Communist leadership. 172 | Talk 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could create a new list and minimize the threat of original research by setting up clear criteria for what counts as a "communist state". For example, the state must make references to Marxism-Leninism in its constitution - this would be particularly useful in eliminating short-lived entities because they never had the time to pass constitutions. For verifiability, we could require links to the relevant parts of the constitutions of the countries in question. -- Nikodemos 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason there is a link to a Wikipedia scraping of the old chart now in the article. --RucasHost (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

world communism restricted by socialist states themselves?

I'm not the biggest fan of communism in the world, but could someone explain to me why, if the USSR and Maoist China, who bordered each other, both were aiming for the goal of world communism, they didn't merge into one 'state' anyway? Surely this could've eradicated and absorbed Mongolia as well? This may be a terribily basic question but what's the answer?

Long story short, they battled over ideological orthodoxy, and this prevented that sort of co-operation. The rulers of the USSR and the PRC were propelled into power in the main by different class forces (the "proletariat" and the "peasantry", respectively). Besides that, there is the question of which stage of development each country was in according to Marxist theory. Both states aimed at building socialism, while communism would come later. —Sesel 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but is this the case with other bordering areas like North Korea and Vietnam as well?

Yes. Each country had ideological and political differences. —Sesel 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both countries were run by despots who had no intention of cooperation, bastardized Marxism and betrayed it. Stalin's theory of "socialism in one country" which Mao more or less accepted and pursued, invalidated the original idea of "world revolution". The Soviet Union and PRC were not communist, Marxist, or socialist. (Demigod Ron (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Geographic connectedness

Did you notice that with the exception of Cuba, you can travel by land between all the current Communist states without travelling over the territory of another state (from Laos through Vietnam through China through North Korea) ? I bet the same is also true before the Soviet collapse. 24.113.177.5 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased view concerning opening paragraphs

As I was reading this article, the phrasing of certain sentences within certian paragraphs struck me as very anti-communist, and straying away from pure facts. I've highlighted portions within the paragraphs where, after reading this, I've felt that revisions should be considered.

The primary features of a Communist state are a one-party dictatorship, totalitarian control of the economy and society, repression of civil liberties, centralized economic planning resulting in enormous economic failures, including shortages of vital products, sometimes to the extent of famine,[1] militarism, and omnipresent propaganda to cover up the systematic failures of the government. Genocide is a common occurrence in Communist states

In Communist theory, after the victory of the Communists, the state "withers away"[14]. According to orthodox Marxist theoreticians, the term "Communist State" is a contradiction.[citation needed]

In multi-party liberal democracies, the system of government (executive, legislative and judicial) operates independently of any political party, with each party competing for a right to control the system of government for a specific tenure. In Communist states, however, state institutions and party institutions depend on each other to function effectively.

What separates Communist states from other one-party systems is the fact that ruling authorities in a Communist state claim to be guided by Marxist-Leninist or Maoist ideology. For Marxist-Leninists, the state and the Communist Party claim to act in accordance with the wishes of the industrial working class; for Maoists, the state and party claim to act in accordance to the peasantry. Both systems claim to have implemented a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, and both claim to be moving towards the gradual abolition of the state and the implementation of communism. These claims have been strongly disputed by opponents of the historical Communist states, including communists who do not subscribe to Marxism-Leninism and Maoism or who regard these states as bastardizations of the ideology.

One portion, such as the "repression of civil liberties", seem incorrect to begin with. A communist state puts the focus on the people as a whole, with less focus on the individual, in a simplistic format - therefore, shouldn't individual replace civil? Stating civil carries a heavy depiction of cruel and/or barbaric treatment.

Another portion involves the last paragraph highlighted, in the portion talking about "Both systems claim to have..." Once again, this seems to be using what has happened in past and current forms of communist societies as truth in what the ideology of a communist state is.

Now, while some of these statements are true in an anecdotal form, that shouldn't stand for an encyclopedic view of what the ideology is, since anecdotal evidence is not evidence in itself. These paragraphs are blurring the lines between facts about the idealogy of what a communist state is, and the historical events of individual communist states.

67.187.169.243 (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean "saint saturn" Willis

"Genocide is a common occurrence in Communist states."

This add, with many ref from 2 to 13, i'm not sure that all the source referenced cited this--87.6.222.51 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)sorry --Francomemoria (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now i'm sure that not all source reported this--Francomemoria (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add section about the term "communist state"

"Communist state" is a term denounced by every communist I know (including me), so I think we should add a section about the name referring to socialist states. It's simply because the countries listed are not really communist, and I don't know if any one has mentioned it, but "communist state" is a misnomer for "socialist state". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a passage about the issue in the name section. Also, note that your point is very much a matter of POV, overlooking what the term actually means in the view of those who (rightly or wrongly) coined it. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of capitalist state

under the list of communist states, and elsewhere, the article states or implies that a state in which the communist party has become intertwined with the government is a communist state.

I think this may mislead people, as nations like the US and UK are capitalist states, but don't have capitalist parties (bu name, at least)

Additionally, the article is by no means neutral and is extremely anti-communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...the article states or implies that a state in which the communist party has become intertwined with the government is a communist state."

Yes, it does.

"I think this may mislead people, as nations like the US and UK are capitalist states, but don't have capitalist parties (bu name, at least)"

But they don't need to. The article makes a statement about communist states - there's no need for a mirroring statement about capitalist states (assuming that such entities, mirroing communist states, exist) to be true. We simply make no stament about capitalist states here, only about communist states. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come there is no article for Capitalist state?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could their be? Is there as state which is capatalist by its constitution? What makes a state capitalist? Is it a matter of politics (as in Communist states) or of economics? I think it is economics and therefore it is not part of the definition of a state by its constitution. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i know that in some constitutions econimics is part of constitution, or there are laws on that.--Francomemoria (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no countries which constitutionally provide for their government to be led by a capitalist party. There is no unified Capitalist International. Capitalism, as an ideological movement, is far less organized than Communism, because by its nature, all societies tend towards capitalism, and governments have to exert significant efforts to make societies less capitalist. A capitalist state is the natural state of affairs, yet is also something of a contradiction in terms, as state action is almost always interfering with capitalism. Argyriou (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms section (regarding contentious material)

I have moved it into the criticism section because I felt that it would appear too factual in an opening paragraph. In the criticism section, it is equal on both sides. Also, the criticism section was needed anyway, so it can be expanded. Thank you for coming with an agreement --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this movement, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, WP:NPOV discourages "criticism" sections; criticisms should be handled within the article generally. Secondly, as this article is about both the theory and practice of Communist states, a summary of all important information about existing Communist states ought to be presented in the introduction, and expanded upon further down in the article. The totalitarian nature and economic and moral failings of Communist states are important aspects of the history and practice of Communism, and should not be minimized by removal from the lead. Argyriou (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am recommending we keep the section the way it is until we can come to a complete agreement. While the evils of the communist state needs to be addressed, perhaps it can be worded so it is not so obvious that it is biased against communism. If the criticisms section is handled within the article generally, the article might as well be named criticisms of communist state's. We could add a page and put a large amount of criticisms there, and link to it from this one. That way, the article doesn't swarm with bias against communist states. We can also merge this article with communism, and allow the criticisms already in place to be part of it. While we both must reach an agreement, other people's opinions might be taken into consideration. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article and Communism are too big to be merged.

Describing facts is neutral. Stating that Communist states have all failed economies is factual - they all have. Stating that Communist states suppress civil liberties is factual - all Communist states suppress civil liberties. Saying that many Communist states have committed genocide is neutral - many have. These statements make Communist states look bad - that's because the facts are that the leaders of Communist states did many bad things. As quoted in WP:NPOV:

“

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary.

”

The same applies to the greater crimes of the Communists.

If you believe the way I've presented the facts is not neutral, please say so, with specific examples, and your suggestions for rewording them. Argyriou (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't neutral entirely. At the end of the Soviet union, Gorbachev's reforms ended most of these. Civil liberties, while I agree that it is true, is not technically right, as China has privacy and freedom of speech as a human right. But the government can censor anything not in it's interests.

The exact paragraph could read.

"Communist states have a tendency to have faltered economies and often suppress civil liberties. On multiple occasions, they have committed genocide." We can put that in the top of the article, I just think the previous wasn't wikified enough. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial column

I'm not sure if the criticism is an editorial. I think that the same information just needs to be wikified after much thought. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably some language which could be changed to be a little more neutral; and some better references could be found (the existing references were the result of about 15 minutes web-searching). There could be a section in the body of the article which expanded on the results of Communist rule - there were some positive things for some places - gender equality generally advanced in ways which survived the fall of Communism; the more industrialized Communist states managed to get passable roads and rural electrification rolled out faster than other countries with similar incomes did, that sort of thing. But that would require more work and some significant research for good sources. Argyriou (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{}}

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 :Ah, yes Argy - finaly logic is starting to take over - but not quite. A Communist State does not mean that the State is Communist - it can also be mean that a Communist-party is ruling it (see paragraph below). Mass murder does not occur in those states. Yes, mass murders did occur, but these were more because of Social-economic instability, than by Communism. You still seem very reluctant to understand where this article is about. We already have a dozen pages on wiki concerning mass-murders, you can link them - however, don't characterize the article with them!--[[Special:Contributions/83.84.138.101|83.84.138.101]] ([[User talk:83.84.138.101|talk]]) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
+"Communist states are also known for mas murder of their citizens, sometimes amounting to millions of deaths." - I'm sorry Argy, but this still isn't acceptable. You're kind of generalizing. Do you chop down all the trees when one leave falls on your head?...
 ==So not all communist states are communist states?==