Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Canada

2009-12-31T01:09:12Z

Matthew2208: /* Quebec Secession Movement */

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgment of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largely cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than the neighboring states of the northern U.S. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural Style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot". Canadian and U.S. polls habitually confirm citizens of both countries view the relationship with each other in a highly positive light, and consider each other with a special respect afforded to common allies. <ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kindergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% ) report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of senators appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governor General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. As a Member of Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethical failures, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

===Policy===
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite growing Canadian annoyance with restrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong supporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, and is perceived by the western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. Until Albertan Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their oil interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec Secession Movement and the October Crisis====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

This movement did reach a violent level however when the FLQ (Front de liberation du Quebec) undertook a series of letterbombings from 1963-1970[http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005880.com] The terror campaign reached a fever pitch when Pierre Laport and James Cross were kidnapped in their own homes by gun wielding FLQ members. [http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/civil_unrest/topics/101/] The government initiated a crackdown in which the war measures act was put in place. The only time where the measure has been enacted in peace time [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/flq/11.html]. The measure was widly supported by Canadians at the time. The action was short lived however as the members of the FLQ were tracked down and arrested. The body of Pierre Laport was discovered in the trunk of a car outside a Canadian military base. James Cross was released after intense negotiations with the government. The remaining members of the FLQ were either jailed or as a result of negotiations deported to Cuba.

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force and the Reserve Force. The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective. They have also taken steps to estalish Canada's sovereignty over its arctic regions.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]
[[File:O-bad-for-canada.jpg|thumb|300px|Leading Canadian newsmagazine evaluates Obama's threat to Canada, June 29, 2009]]

Canadians worry that Obama's economic policies will damage Canada's economy, especially [[cap and trade]], the Buy America rule in the 2009 stimulus, and environmental hostility to Canadian oil produced from oil sands.
===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.

==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further Reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* DK Publishing. ''Canada'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by Hugh Thompson (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Canada-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0789495619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249580319&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 very good entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' (2003). 3rd edition of textbook
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' (1983). 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Canada

2009-12-31T01:05:24Z

Matthew2208: /* Quebec Secession Movement */

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgment of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largely cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than the neighboring states of the northern U.S. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural Style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot". Canadian and U.S. polls habitually confirm citizens of both countries view the relationship with each other in a highly positive light, and consider each other with a special respect afforded to common allies. <ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kindergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% ) report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of senators appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governor General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. As a Member of Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethical failures, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

===Policy===
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite growing Canadian annoyance with restrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong supporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, and is perceived by the western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. Until Albertan Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their oil interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec Secession Movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

This movement did reach a violent level however when the FLQ (Front de liberation du Quebec) undertook a series of letterbombings from 1963-1970[http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005880.com] The terror campaign reached a fever pitch when Pierre Laport and James Cross were kidnapped in their own homes by gun wielding FLQ members. [http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/civil_unrest/topics/101/] The government initiated a crackdown in which the war measures act was put in place. The only time where the measure has been enacted in peace time [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/flq/11.html]. The measure was widly supported by Canadians at the time. The action was short lived however as the members of the FLQ were tracked down and arrested. The body of Pierre Laport was discovered in the trunk of a car outside a Canadian military base. James Cross was released after intense negotiations with the government. The remaining members of the FLQ were either jailed or as a result of negotiations deported to Cuba.

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force and the Reserve Force. The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective. They have also taken steps to estalish Canada's sovereignty over its arctic regions.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]
[[File:O-bad-for-canada.jpg|thumb|300px|Leading Canadian newsmagazine evaluates Obama's threat to Canada, June 29, 2009]]

Canadians worry that Obama's economic policies will damage Canada's economy, especially [[cap and trade]], the Buy America rule in the 2009 stimulus, and environmental hostility to Canadian oil produced from oil sands.
===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.

==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further Reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* DK Publishing. ''Canada'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by Hugh Thompson (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Canada-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0789495619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249580319&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 very good entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' (2003). 3rd edition of textbook
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' (1983). 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Canada

2009-12-31T01:04:08Z

Matthew2208: /* Quebec Secession Movement */

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgment of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largely cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than the neighboring states of the northern U.S. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural Style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot". Canadian and U.S. polls habitually confirm citizens of both countries view the relationship with each other in a highly positive light, and consider each other with a special respect afforded to common allies. <ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kindergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% ) report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of senators appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governor General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. As a Member of Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethical failures, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

===Policy===
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite growing Canadian annoyance with restrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong supporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, and is perceived by the western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. Until Albertan Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their oil interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec Secession Movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

This movement did reach a violent level however when the FLQ (Front de liberation du Quebec) undertook a series of letterbombings from 1963-1970[http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005880.com 1] The terror campaign reached a fever pitch when Pierre Laport and James Cross were kidnapped in their own homes by gun wielding FLQ members. [http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/civil_unrest/topics/101/2] The government initiated a crackdown in which the war measures act was put in place. The only time where the measure has been enacted in peace time [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/flq/11.html 3]. The measure was widly supported by Canadians at the time. The action was short lived however as the members of the FLQ were tracked down and arrested. The body of Pierre Laport was discovered in the trunk of a car outside a Canadian military base. James Cross was released after intense negotiations with the government. The remaining members of the FLQ were either jailed or as a result of negotiations deported to Cuba.

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force and the Reserve Force. The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective. They have also taken steps to estalish Canada's sovereignty over its arctic regions.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]
[[File:O-bad-for-canada.jpg|thumb|300px|Leading Canadian newsmagazine evaluates Obama's threat to Canada, June 29, 2009]]

Canadians worry that Obama's economic policies will damage Canada's economy, especially [[cap and trade]], the Buy America rule in the 2009 stimulus, and environmental hostility to Canadian oil produced from oil sands.
===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.

==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further Reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* DK Publishing. ''Canada'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by Hugh Thompson (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Canada-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0789495619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249580319&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 very good entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' (2003). 3rd edition of textbook
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' (1983). 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Talk:Afrika Korps

2009-12-31T00:46:51Z

Matthew2208:

== Sorry to interupt the backslapping ==

El Alamein?

--[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:19, 3 March 2007 (EST)

Don't get the joke here. Is this a joke? What does this mean?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 3 March 2007 (EST)

:No joke. I just thought that the article, as it currently stands, gives the impression that the Afrika Korps totally defeated the British and that it is solely down to the Americans that the Afrika Korps were eventually defeated. That is, of course, incorrect. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:24, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::OK, let's fix it ASAP.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::: I looked at it and don't see anything that is obviously "incorrect". Didn't the Germans beat the British in North Africa in WWII, until the Americans arrived?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:41, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::Not really. The Afrika Korps were defeated at the second battle of El Alamein shortly before Operation Torch. Furthermore, Operation Torch did include some British troops (and even some Free French). --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:49, 3 March 2007 (EST)

::::: I'm skeptical. This seems like a battle characterized by the British as a big victory to boost public morale. In fact, a quick look confirms that Allied losses were nearly twice the German losses. Rommel did retreat, however, so I guess that is what makes it a victory. Surely he could have retaliated successfully later had Patton not arrived.

::::: Feel free to add and describe the battle, though, as it is informative. I'll get this started and you can change as you like.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 3 March 2007 (EST)

These guys were amazing only deafted by the British Eigth Army. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:29, 4 March 2007 (EST)

A good source for this article would be John Bierman and Colin Smiths book ''The Battle of Alamein'', which details how the Afrika Korps were stopped at the First Battle of El Alamein and then defeated at the Second Battle of El Alamein. British casualties were high because the second battle involved the Eighth Army attacking the Afrika Korps with the result that many British Imperial soldiers marched into World War I type machine-gun fire. The British did win, however. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 21:54, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Operation Torch ==

Actually I don't think it is strictly accurate to say that Operation Torch defeated the Afrika Korps for two reasons: (1) I think Torch had finished by that time; and (2) The Afrika Korps were caught between the Americans and the British. I will look it up and return later. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Steep learning curve? ==

I fail to see what relevance a the steep learning curve the americans faced has on the Afrika Corps. It is not entirely relevant.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::The Afrika Corps taught the Americans a lot of lessons. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:25, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::Yes but how does that qualify for its inclusion in an article ON the Afrika corps? I'm going to attempt a revision.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:33, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Could you please site a reason for your revision? It is muddying the article.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:49, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::::::It was put back by sysops, so they must think it is relevant. On such issues, I defer to the people in charge.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 18:55, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Edit done as "less and less" is not acceptable in a history page.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:46, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Afrika Korps

2009-12-31T00:45:55Z

Matthew2208:

{{RefAppeal}}
The '''Afrika Korps''', were a German military unit led by [[Field Marshal]] [[Erwin Rommel]]. The Afrika Korps entered the North [[Africa]]n campaign to aid Germany's [[Italian]] allies when the Italians suffered a series of defeats at the hands of the [[british|British Commonwealth]] forces. Rommel launched an offensive from [[El Agheila]] which pushed the British back into [[Egypt]]. The British subsequently attacked advancing back to El Agheila. Again the Afrika Korps attacked pushing the British Commonwealth forces back to [[Egypt]] where the German advance was stopped at the [[Battle of El Alamein|first battle of El Alamein]].

The British Commonwealth forces then defeated the Afrika Korps at [[Alam Halfa]] and the second battle of [[El Alamein]] in late 1942.

In Nov. 1942 the Americans and British launched [[Operation Torch]]. Operation Torch was followed by [[Operation Retribution]].

The British Royal Navy cut off supplies, which rendered the German tanks less mobile, and cut off any retreat to Italy. In May 1943 spring they surrendered.

North Africa was steep learning curve for American forces, the [[Battle of Kasserine Pass]] being the near-distasterous defeat that lead to vital restructure, and change in tactics.
The German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, was considered to be a gentleman (as far as German officers went), and later participated in a failed [[assassination]] attempt on [[Hitler]]. It was his opinion that the [[Australia]]n Forces represented the elite units of the Allied forces in the North African '[[Desert War]]', this was based on the successful defence of the besieged [[Tobruk]] (240 days), and the Australian infantry's innovative means of engaging the German '[[Blitzkrieg]]' [[Panzer]] strategy, which up until then was unstoppable without the large-scale use of [[artillery]].

[[Category:World War II]]

Afrika Korps

2009-12-30T23:50:17Z

Matthew2208:

{{RefAppeal}}
The '''Afrika Korps''', were a German military unit led by [[Field Marshal]] [[Erwin Rommel]]. The Afrika Korps entered the North [[Africa]]n campaign to aid Germany's [[Italian]] allies when the Italians suffered a series of defeats at the hands of the [[british|British Commonwealth]] forces. Rommel launched an offensive from [[El Agheila]] which pushed the British back into [[Egypt]]. The British subsequently attacked advancing back to El Agheila. Again the Afrika Korps attacked pushing the British Commonwealth forces back to [[Egypt]] where the German advance was stopped at the [[Battle of El Alamein|first battle of El Alamein]].

The British Commonwealth forces then defeated the Afrika Korps at [[Alam Halfa]] and the second battle of [[El Alamein]] in late 1942.

In Nov. 1942 the Americans and British launched [[Operation Torch]]. Operation Torch was followed by [[Operation Retribution]].

The British Royal Navy cut off supplies, which rendered the German tanks less and less mobile, and cut off any retreat to Italy. In May 1943 spring they surrendered.

North Africa was steep learning curve for American forces, the [[Battle of Kasserine Pass]] being the near-distasterous defeat that lead to vital restructure, and change in tactics.
The German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, was considered to be a gentleman (as far as German officers went), and later participated in a failed [[assassination]] attempt on [[Hitler]]. It was his opinion that the [[Australia]]n Forces represented the elite units of the Allied forces in the North African '[[Desert War]]', this was based on the successful defence of the besieged [[Tobruk]] (240 days), and the Australian infantry's innovative means of engaging the German '[[Blitzkrieg]]' [[Panzer]] strategy, which up until then was unstoppable without the large-scale use of [[artillery]].

[[Category:World War II]]

Talk:Afrika Korps

2009-12-30T23:49:59Z

Matthew2208: /* Steep learning curve? */

Afrika Korps

2009-12-30T23:34:48Z

Matthew2208:

{{RefAppeal}}
The '''Afrika Korps''', were a German military unit led by [[Field Marshal]] [[Erwin Rommel]]. The Afrika Korps entered the North [[Africa]]n campaign to aid Germany's [[Italian]] allies when the Italians suffered a series of defeats at the hands of the [[british|British Commonwealth]] forces. Rommel launched an offensive from [[El Agheila]] which pushed the British back into [[Egypt]]. The British subsequently attacked advancing back to El Agheila. Again the Afrika Korps attacked pushing the British Commonwealth forces back to [[Egypt]] where the German advance was stopped at the [[Battle of El Alamein|first battle of El Alamein]].

The British Commonwealth forces then defeated the Afrika Korps at [[Alam Halfa]] and the second battle of [[El Alamein]] in late 1942.

In Nov. 1942 the Americans and British launched [[Operation Torch]]. Operation Torch was followed by [[Operation Retribution]].

The British Royal Navy cut off supplies, which rendered the German tanks less and less mobile, and cut off any retreat to Italy. In May 1943 spring they surrendered.

The [[Battle of Kasserine Pass]] was the first battle in which American forces engaged the Afrika Corps. The near disastrous defeat led to revisions in American strategy which was at the time out of date. The German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, was considered to be a gentleman (as far as German officers went), and later participated in a failed [[assassination]] attempt on [[Hitler]]. It was his opinion that the [[Australia]]n Forces represented the elite units of the Allied forces in the North African '[[Desert War]]', this was based on the successful defence of the besieged [[Tobruk]] (240 days), and the Australian infantry's innovative means of engaging the German '[[Blitzkrieg]]' [[Panzer]] strategy, which up until then was unstoppable without the large-scale use of [[artillery]].

[[Category:World War II]]

Talk:Afrika Korps

2009-12-30T23:33:08Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Fidel Castro

2009-12-30T23:24:36Z

Matthew2208:

I’ve heard Castro called many things, but terrorist is not one of them, can someone explain why he is listed as a terrorist? Also could the information justifying that categorization be added to his page?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.'' (See [[Differences_with_Wikipedia]])
:see [[Terrorism]] for a description of a terroist. Castro certainly was one.
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist. If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so. The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear. The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Castro couldn't have been convicted of being a terrorist because he terrorized the legal authority that could have convicted him out of existence.
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 15:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That does seem to be a problem with the editorial policy (though I would say he used violence rather than terror to end the previous Cuban government), but I don’t make the policy (I’ve even argued against it). I’m just telling you what I gather the policy is. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By that definition Batista was a terrorist with his coup in 1934, just as Castro is, or George Washington for that matter...

It's all about the word "unlawful", which generally doesn't have the same meaning in different times and countries.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== DIctator/President ==

Interesting to note that Castro "has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959 and ''has called himself'' the President of Cuba since 1976," whereas [[Pervez Musharraf]] "''became'' President of Pakistan, ''via a coup''" (emphasis mine). What in essence is the difference? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:46, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:For a dictator, he certainly relinquished power without much of a struggle. [[User:Rugxulo|Rugxulo]] 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Castro Dead?==
Can we see some hard evidence suggesting this? Just because he is keeping to himself dosn't mean he has died. He is still the Secretary of the communist party--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:Maybe Fidel Castro is alive and even editing this site!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::Speculation is not necessary here as Castro is no longer running the show. His brother Raul Castro was innagurated as acting President in July 2006. Until such evidence is shown speculation of his death is ultimately baseless. Please do not add any. This is not a gossip site after all. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:02, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:::Matthew, you're clueless here. When someone is missing for 3.5 years and there is an incentive to lie about his fate, then he's presumptively dead. Communists don't define the truth. God does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::In October Castro allegedly met with the leader of Cyprus and a Chinese official. [http://nba.msg.com/photo/0a1W9IQclz2DV Here] is a supposed photo of Castro with Wu Bangguo. It's released by the Cuban state media, but apparently the (obviously liberal) AP found it sufficiently convincing as to endorse it.
::::Obviously it's possible that the leader of Cyprus (and at least three other leaders who have allegedly met him since July) was paid off to lie about this and the photo is of a lookalike (or older). But true or false, matters are perhaps not quite so simple as Fidel simply disappearing for the last few years, and we should carefully consider the evidence. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:13, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Fidel, like many dictators, had body and face doubles, like the one we famously killed of Saddam in the opening salvo of the Iraq invasion. It seems far more likely to me that they just passed a double off as Castro than that they bribed a foreign head of state. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::::[[Liberal denial]] illustrates its [[double standard]]. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no [[liberal]] will admit that Castro is likely dead also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Well, the difference there is that Natalie Holloway disappeared, whereas Castro hasn't been seen in public for years. By that logic Macaulay Culkin is also dead. But seriously, Castro certainly could be dead, but that doesn't mean he is. If I had to guess, I'd say he's not. I think if he had died they would have staged an enormous funeral for him with all sorts of parades, teeming with propaganda. Dictators love that stuff. But that's just my opinion. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 12:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I just noticed that this made "[[Liberal Denial]]." DanL seems to make a good point Andy. I guess what I don't see is:
*a) What motivation the Cubans would have to lie about Castro being dead and
*b) What motivation liberals would have to insist that Castro is alive if he really were dead. It seems like a really obscure point at best. Personally, I'm assuming that Castro is alive for the same reason everyone else does: dictators don't just pass away unnoticed. Or is there a historical precedent I'm missing? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 12:25, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I'm confused about whether you're saying you know he's dead or that you presume he's dead based on not being sighted in public. I just checked the news and there are quite a few references to him making statements recently. Are you saying someone is lying? If so, to what end? And the Holloway story is different in that she disappeared. You just haven't seen Castro lately. Others appear to have because they recorded his statements. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 12:38, 30 December 2009 (EST)

'''Motivation''' would primarily to conceal the power struggle while the fascists decide who's going to be the new dictator. Communists lie about everything else - particularly [[mass murder]] (see also [[genocide]]). The kind of political power that "comes out of the barrel of a gun" rather than the curtains of a voting booth is well disposed to deception. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:22, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:DanL and JDW seem to think that if a brutal communist regime claims someone is alive, then we should take that at face value even though he hasn't been seen publicly in 3.5 years. But they don't answer the question of why they believe communists when, for example, they probably wouldn't believe a similar claim that another missing person (such as Natalie Holloway) is still alive. As each day goes by without a public appearance by Fidel Castro or credible independent verification (e.g., a meeting with Republican congressmen), the chance Fidel Castro is still alive decreases. How much longer do DanL and JDW require before admitting that the chance has dropped to less than 50%? After 3.5 more years? 10 more years?

:Communists lie about everything. There's little reason to believe that the Russian dictator Yuri Andropov died when the communists said he did, given the long period when no one could confirm he was still alive either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::It's not just Cubans who say he's alive. Castro himself wrote several articles in the last few months and the president of Argentina met with him in Cuba. Do you think he's dead because you believe communists are in general liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 15:36, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::Well if you have doubts, feel free to fly down to Havana and see him for yourself. And while you're there, see about getting the right to criticize Castro's government...or the right to free speech in general, or the right to assemble freely with like-minded persons, or the right to attend the church of your choice, or the right to possess a gun just in case the government gets a tad-tyrannical. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:55, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict) Wow, Hector, that seals the case ... Castro supposedly wrote some articles! Of course that proves nothing.

:::Castro was a communist dictator. He reveled in worship of him by the public. After he's been missing for a period of time from self-serving public events, a period that started with a life-threatening medical condition and complex surgery, the chance that he is still alive decreases with each passing day. The [[liberal denial]] of this is remarkable.

:::Perhaps the closure by liberals will come when the New York Times finally runs a front page article asking these questions. Then, as soon as the communists can arrange it without being too obvious, they will announce that Castro just passed away.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:00, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::I don't really care either way since I don't have a horse in this race. If you'll notice, I'm just asking you questions, not taking a position one way or the other, so I'm not in liberal denial, whatever that is. I'm just concerned that you're not addressing that the president of Argentina met with him earlier this year. Hugo Chavez met with him more recently. Are these men liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:03, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Well, I guess your statement "I don't really care either way" constitutes the bonafide end of your argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:07, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::::I'm sorry I came off as flippant there. I don't care whether he's alive or dead, to be honest, but I do care that the article reflect the truth instead of speculation. Thanks for pointing out my error. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::What you need to do is to read the Bible as you said you try to do on your user page, specifically Revelation 3:14-18; it tells of what Jesus will do to a church that "doesn't really care one way or the other":
::::::::''And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.''
:::::::[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::Of course I don't take anything Communist regimes say at face value. They do indeed lie more than they tell the truth. Still I don't see the motivation in this case, as Castro is no longer even the leader, thus the power struggles Ed mentioned wouldn't be in play. Furthermore, I stand by my point. Dictators don't die unnoticed and unanounced: Stalin died and a massive funeral was organized overnight. Mao died and the same happened. Kim Il Sung, Hitler, you name it, no one kept their deaths a secret, because there was no reason to put off a big dramatic funeral and public outpouring of love for the Dear Leader. Can you name a single instance where a dictator died and his death was covered up?

::Not to mention, no one's touched my second question. What motivation would liberals have to ''deny'' that a dictator has died? To put it nicely, this whole issue sounds like shadow-boxing to me. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::I do not know about Fidel Castro, however in history there were cases in which a leader died and a weaker leader took over, pretending to serve the interests of the previous leader. If Raul Castro is unpopular, maybe he pretends his brother is alive to use his power? I am not saying that this happened, but it is not without precedent.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 16:59, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Raul Castro would not need to be popular if he was truly dedicated to being the next dictator as he is the leader of the armed forces. If he wished he could simply crush the opposition. That and gain massive sympathy through a propaganda campaign through his brothers death. Stalin did much the same thing with Lenin. He used the mans death to further his own gains. In fact Lenin's case was similar as he had suffered from a stroke that kept him from making public appearances. The USSR certainly had no incentive to lie about that.

Mr. Shlalfly your argument does not make much sense. You have not shown any incentive that there is to lie about his death. As I just explained above Raul would not need to lie as he has the absolute power in his country. Also please note that you are breaking Conservapedia commandement #5 by posting the opening of the article as "and is presumably no longer alive as of December 2009; the communists running Cuba have no incentive to risk challenge to their power by announcing that he passed away." This is a personal opinion and is not backed up by any source and is purely speculation. I am going to honor the Conservapedia Commandments and change the heading in order to reflect what is known and not speculation. I trust that since this is within the code of conduct it is appropriate?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 17:17, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Apparently I am being blocked from editing this page and clearing speculation. I would like the editior to please contact me and site the reason they are in defiance of the Commandments.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Afrika Korps

2009-12-30T23:19:56Z

Matthew2208: /* Steep learning curve? */ new section

Afrika Korps

2009-12-30T22:52:35Z

Matthew2208:

{{RefAppeal}}
The '''Afrika Korps''', were a German military unit led by [[Field Marshal]] [[Erwin Rommel]]. The Afrika Korps entered the North [[Africa]]n campaign to aid Germany's [[Italian]] allies when the Italians suffered a series of defeats at the hands of the [[british|British Commonwealth]] forces. Rommel launched an offensive from [[El Agheila]] which pushed the British back into [[Egypt]]. The British subsequently attacked advancing back to El Agheila. Again the Afrika Korps attacked pushing the British Commonwealth forces back to [[Egypt]] where the German advance was stopped at the [[Battle of El Alamein|first battle of El Alamein]].

The British Commonwealth forces then defeated the Afrika Korps at [[Alam Halfa]] and the second battle of [[El Alamein]] in late 1942.

Shortly afterwards, the [[Allies]] launched [[Operation Torch]] which included [[Free French]] forces. Operation Torch was followed by [[Operation Retribution]], and ultimately the defeat of the Afrika Korps, which forced their surrender.

The German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel, was considered to be a gentleman (as far as German officers went), and later participated in a failed [[assassination]] attempt on [[Hitler]]. It was his opinion that the [[Australia]]n Forces represented the elite units of the Allied forces in the North African '[[Desert War]]', this was based on the successful defence of the besieged [[Tobruk]] (240 days), and the Australian infantry's innovative means of engaging the German '[[Blitzkrieg]]' [[Panzer]] strategy, which up until then was unstoppable without the large-scale use of [[artillery]].

[[Category:World War II]]

Global warming

2009-12-30T22:22:04Z

Matthew2208:

[[Image:Composite antarctic NASA.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A composite map of [[Antarctica]] showing areas of greatest warming in red, other colors indicate cooling. The Wilkins Ice Shelf lies off the peninsula in the top left corner, and shows extensive warming. Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right.]]
'''Global warming''' theory asserts that changing gas content in the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere. Some gases attributed with causing this effect are produced by industrial and power plants, while many others come from natural phenomena. In addition to atmospheric gas content, many other factors control the earth's temperature, which has its own pattern of heating and cooling.

While many climate scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, some computer models designed to predict long term trends fail to predict recent short-term cooling that the Earth is experiencing. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]</ref> Because 1998 was the year of El Nino, a natural phenomenon that occurs intermittently and causes the year in which it occurs to be anomalously hot, the relation of that year to longer trends is unclear. As temperatures have been falling since 1998, increasing doubt is being cast on the validity of global warming claims.

In November 2009, emails were stolen that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming, leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims. This shows extreme cases of "cherry picking" by the scientists involved as they simply took bits of data that might back up their theory.

The idea of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW) is promoted by liberals and socialists seeking greater government control over the production and use of energy, which is a substantial percentage of the economy. In economic terms, they would like to 'internalize' the 'externality,' which is to say that they think that producers of emissions should be directly connected to the consequences of those emissions, leading syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer to warn of an impending ''Environmental Shakedown''.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/11/copenhagen_shakedown.html</ref>

Numerous scientists, especially those outside of university faculties, have been critical of anthropogenic global warming, but their general lack of comparative credentials has led to agreement that, among authorities in scientific disciplines, there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" supporting their theory for greater government control. Global warming skeptics question whether there is a financial incentive for supporting research.<ref>[http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/336889_climatepolicy26.html Pual Chesser,
''Be wary of climate policy development'', Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Act. 25, 2007]</ref> Prior to [[Climategate]], both the Republican and Democratic party Platforms in 2008 suggested that global warming is happening, that it is caused by human activity, and that it should be counteracted.

Global warming skeptics charge that on most college campuses criticism of it is silenced or censored, and provide evidence of scientists skeptical of AGW being repressed.<ref>http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031</ref>

Temperatures have been decreasing rapidly throughout this decade (as of 2009). Historically, natural periods of global warming and global cooling have alternated, and not long ago liberals were demanding more government control to combat an alleged cooling in temperatures, with some scientists warning of a possible ice age.<ref>''Science: Another Ice Age?'' Time magazine, Monday, Jun. 24, 1974</ref>

The unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President in 2000, [[Al Gore]], won a [[Nobel Prize]] in 2007 for claiming that there is a dangerous man-made global warming that threatens the world. Neither he nor his supporters admit that a rapid cooling in temperatures is being observed. In 2007, the Republican presidential candidate Senator [[John McCain]] called global warming "an issue we can no longer afford to ignore".<ref>[http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/John_McCain_Environment.htm]</ref>

In 2008 86 evangelical pastors, including Rev. Dr.[[Rick Warren]] signed a statement titled "Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action", which called on Christians to acknowledge the moral importance of action to counteract man - made climate change. the statement includes specific support for market - based CO2 reductions such as a cap - and - trade program.<ref>[http://christiansandclimate.org/]</ref> In contrast, a group of evangelical scholars, comprised of scientists, economists and theologians, contend that the liberal view of pending catastrophe caused by climate change is misleading and or exaggerated.<ref>[http://www.christianpost.com/article/20091204/evangelicals-push-back-against-climate-change-hoax/pageall.html ''Evangelicals Push Back Against Global Warming Doom'', Dec. 04 2009, christianpost.com]</ref>

==Presence of CO2==

One of the primary concerns of Global Warming research is the increased presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Original claims stated that the increase in carbon dioxide - which is a greenhouse gas - were caused primarily through the burning of [[fossil fuels]], and that such increases were the foremost cause of global temperatures rising. However, recent research has shown that the average global temperature and carbon dioxide do have a relationship, but that the relationship is the other way around. Global temperature changes precede changes in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, leading to the increasing belief amongst the skeptical science community that global temperatures are causing carbion dioxide to increase in the atmosphere. <ref> [http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm]</ref>

The most obvious way that this would occur would be through the evaporation of ocean water. The oceans are the single largest storage unit for carbon dioxide gas on the planet, containing about 93% of the Earth's carbon dioxide. <ref> [http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html] </ref> As temperatures rise, ocean water evaporates, causing the dissolved carbon dioxide gas to enter the atmosphere, and begin trapping radiation from the sun. Scientists now believe that this cycle causes a sort of chain effect, where increased temperature causes more carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, which in turn causes more temperature rise. However, this discredits the idea that human contributions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are significant enough to affect global climate change.

It is also noteworthy to point out that carbon dioxide, while not as abundant in the atmosphere, has a more significant effect on global warming than water vapor does. Carbon dioxide cannot form clouds, as water vapor does. When water vapor forms clouds, those clouds actually block some of the sun's radiation from reaching the Earth, causing water vapor to both contribute positively and negatively to global temperature rise. Carbon dioxide can only act as a greenhouse gas, causing the above mentioned cyclic effect.

==The Modern Warm Period==

The Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen about 1° F since 1970.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref> Studies have ruled out the possibility that errors in the measurements and sampling significantly affect the temperature trends detected over the past century. This accounts for spatial errors in the sampling and thus also incorporates errors associated with the urban-heating effect. According to Karl et al. (1993) ''"Results imply that the errors associated with century-scale trends of temperature are probably an order of magnitude smaller than the observed global warming of nearly 0.5°C per 100 years since the late nineteenth century"'' <ref>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994JCli....7.1144K Karl et al. (1993) 'Global and Hemispheric Temperature Trends: Uncertainties Related to Inadequate Spatial Sampling' in Journal of Climate, 7(7); 1144 - 1168</ref>

According to temperature reconstruction made within an [[Old Earth]] paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle or random fluctuations in the atmosphere. However, many scientists also think that human activities were most likely the cause of the the planet's recent warming.

== Sun Spots ==
Sunspot activity may be a primary factor in climate fluctuations, according to Willie Soon, a researcher affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Harvard College Observatory. '''“The sun is a great driving force to climate change.”''' Soon said that there have been much greater temperature fluctuations due to sunspots in the past and that proponents of global warming need to consider the effects of sunspot activity on global temperatures. Brian Farrell, a Harvard meteorology professor, acknowledged a connection between sunspot activity and temperatures on the Earth, “A strong correlation between the amount of radioactive carbon and temperature from ice cores has shown that solar activity can affect temperature." <ref>[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/42006/181/ Harvard astrophysicist: Sunspot activity correlates to global climate change] TGDaily.com, April 10, 2009</ref>

==Politicization of the issue==

Environmentalists and their political allies have presented a one-sided, anti-scientific account of global warming. They have ignored natural warming cycles and suppressed evidence which contradicts their theories. They have viciously attacked the credibility of any scientist daring to contradict them, creating a climate of fear where only a tiny handful of scientists dare speak out.

Bill Gray wrote:
* The contrary views of the many warming skeptics have been largely ignored and their motives denigrated.
* The normal scientific process of objectively studying both sides of the question has not yet occurred.<ref> [http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/XchangeGray_FtCollinsFeb08.pdf Area Experts Debate Global Warming]</ref>

Journalists in the West, dominated by liberal viewpoints, have painted a misleading picture of the science. They have publicized liberal slanders against scientists who dare to speak up against the fake "consensus"

Even organizations that are not normally biased towards leftist ideas have publicly supported the global warming theory. The oil company Exxon/Mobil official policy is that CO2 emissions pose risks to society and ecosystems. Exxon/Mobil has also committed to reducing their own CO2 emissions, and invested $600 million in algae based fuels.<ref> [http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_views.aspx]</ref>

Agencies of the United States Government such as NASA, EPA & NOAA give selected information that strongly supports the global warming theory. At the same time, they reject freedom of information requests to see the raw data. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/58087 Vitter, Inhofe Ask NASA Inspector General to Probe Possible Obstruction of FOIA Requests Seeking Climate Change Records, CNSNews.com, December 04, 2009]</ref> The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for one example, states that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising due to human activity, and that the surface of the Earth has warmed, on average, quickly over the last 50 years, even though North America cooled slightly.<ref> [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q2]</ref> In 2008 The Bush Administration requested $4.1 billion dollars of taxpayer money from Congress to fund NOAA, a 7.7 percent increase from 2008.<ref> [http://www.noaa.gov/budget/] </ref>

The 2008 Democratic National Committee Platform states;<ref>[states;http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html]</ref>

"We must end the tyranny of oil in our time. This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the longer - term threat from climate change"

and

"...climate change is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis."

The 2008 Republican National Committee Platform states; <ref>[http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Environment.htm]</ref>

"The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment."

There have also been some Conservatives, such as John Bliese, Ph.D., who at one point believed that global warming is a critical problem, and that [[Conservatism]] and environmental conservation are fully compatible. Speaking to those who are skeptical of global warming, in the [[Summer]] of 2001, he wrote, "[T]here is nothing conservative about denying scientific evidence."<ref>[http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html]</ref>

On October 10, 2009, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham coauthored (with Democrat Senator John Kerry) an op ed piece in the New York Times which stated "Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk."
<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?pagewanted=1]</ref>

in 2008 the Center for Naval Analyses empaneled eleven retired generals and admirals to prepare a paper titled "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change". They concluded that Global climate change presents a serious national security threat which could impact Americans at home, impact United States military operations and heighten global tensions.<ref>[http://securityandclimate.cna.org/]</ref>

The Central Intelligence Agency has opened The Center on Climate Change and National Security to study the impact of climate change on US national security.<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security], Central Intelligence Agency, September 25, 2009.</ref>

Conservative activist and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a Conservative Environmentalism to find solutions to global warming by free market mechanisms.<ref>http://newt.org/EditNewt/FeaturedBloggersDB/tabid/193/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3392/Default.aspx</ref>

==Climate change as a religious cult==
The zeal of climate-change advocates and lack of objectivity has led some observers to see it as a core belief in a new eco-theology, using themes of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. columnist Deon Feder warns, that following other attempts such as Marxism, overpopulation, ''Silent Spring'',
<blockquote>now we have the Church of Global Warming, under the leadership of Pope Albert I and his college of cardinals (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and editorial board of The New York Times).

Its Office for the Propagation of the Faith works overtime, churning out books, movies (from the fictional “The Day After Tomorrow” to the fictional “An Inconvenient Truth”), textbooks, concerts, congressional hearings, media pleading and inquisitions.<ref>Don Feder, ''The Cult of Global Warming'', GrassTopsUSA.com 7/31/2007</ref> </blockquote>

==Climate science fraud==
{{main|Climategate}}

The [[Climategate#Climategate_scandal|Climategate scandal]] revealed how liberal scientists appeared to be deceiving the public with the use of fraudulent data for use as climate science. The [[Liberal media|liberal media]] has attempted to bury the story and discount it as the work of computer hackers illegally stealing data, however, [[FOIA|Freedom of Information]] requests is likely what led to the data being leaked — intentionally.<ref>http://www.junkscience.com/</ref> Dr. Willie Soon, a [[Physicist|physicist]], [[Astronomer|astronomer]] and climate researcher at the solar and stellar physics division of the [[Harvard University]]-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said in an interview, "[The Climatic Research Unit climate scientists] are making scientific progress more difficult now. This is a shameful, dark day for science." Dr. Soon also suggested that there has been systemic suppression of dissenting opinion among scientists in the climate change community, ranging from social snubs to e-mail stalking and even threats of harm.<ref>Gene J. Koprowski. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578368,00.html Global Warming Scandal Makes Scientific Progress More Difficult, Experts Say], ''[[Fox News]]'', December 01, 2009.</ref>

[[Image:GoreFireBreathing.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Al Gore's [[Schlockumentary]] under fire; [[An Inconvenient Truth]] found to be an inconvenient [[lie]] based on [[junk science]] and digitally enhanced, totally faked scenes of polar icecaps melting.]]

==Liberal claims of "Consensus"==
[[Richard Lindzen]] wrote in 1992,

:Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref name="cato">http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref>

Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, [[liberal]] activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for [[anthropogenic global warming]]. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in ''any'' global warming translates into "consensus" support for ''human-caused'' global warming.)

The campaign to convince the public (and their elected representatives) that the "science is settled" began in 1988 or 1989.

By the 2008 elections both candidates for the Presidency of the United States were proposing plans to mitigate climate change.

Over 31,000 American scientists have signed the petition rejecting global warming. <ref>[http://www.petitionproject.org/</ref>

[[Image:Teller_Card_100dpi.jpg|600px|center|thumb| Global Warming Petition]]

It is well understood that most media companies do not offer balanced reporting. Many politicians have bought into the liberal claim of consensus, for example Barack Obama's views, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." <ref>[http://cato.org/special/climatechange/ Climate Change Reality] Cato Institute</ref> In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation. Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad. Liberals have failed to back up their claims with any scientific facts.

[[File:ad.jpg|center]]

==Natural Variability of the Climate System==
It is virtually universally accepted amongst climatologists that the earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures fluctuated created glacial and inter-glacial periods. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Natural Climate Change on Other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen {{temperature|0.6|1.1}} just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

On the other hand [[Uranus]] has had no net change in temperature since 1977. A rapid increase in temperature reversed itself. The reasons for this are not understood.<ref>http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/ur149/Young2001Uranus.pdf</ref>

Global temperatures change on other planets even when there is no life, something which strongly supports the idea that humans are not necessarily the cause of earth's global warming. Moreover, the temperature on Uranus has fluctuated back and forth. There is no reason that fluctuations cannot occur on earth, too.

Although measurements have been made of the temperatures of other planets these are by no means thorough or comparable with the measurements used for earth. The short space of time over which measurements have been taken and the very limited spatial coverage means that reliable average figures have not been obtained. They have certainly not been taken extensively enough to produce a five year average temperature, which is the standard when determining temperature trends on earth.

However, if accurate measurements could be made, and their accuracy and reliability is improving over time, then they may prove useful to climate science. Their different atmospheres and distances from the sun provide natural laboratories to study climatic changes without human influences. Though of course they will not be directly comparable due to the vast differences.

==Beneficial effects of Global Warming==

Some researchers point out that benefits of health global warming have been overlooked, or minimized. As far back as 1996, Thomas Gale Moore, Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution (Stanford University) contended that positive health and amenity effects would be a result of projected increases in temperature. <ref>[http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming]</ref>

Another source notes,

In areas that see extreme cold temperatures, deaths related to colder weather would drop significantly, leading to decreased health care costs. Warmer temperatures would also mean less energy use to heat homes and buildings, helping to conserve energy. With the changes brought about by global warming more land would become available for uses like farming and living. Forests and plants would grow stronger, healthier, and more abundant because of the warmer weather, and this would mean more oxygen being released into the atmosphere.<ref>http://www.bionomicfuel.com/what-are-the-benefits-of-global-warming/</ref>

==Politics of Global Warming==
{{main|Politics of global warming}}

Christine Stewart- Canadian Environment Ministry, "'''No matter if the science is all phony''', there are collateral environmental benefits . . . Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” <ref>[http://www.aim.org/wls/use-environmentalism-to-change-the-world/ Christine Stewart] Accuracy in Media</ref>

'Global Warming Now World's Most Boring Topic’ <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/14167</ref>

The need to fight "global warming" has become part of the dogma of the liberal conscience. <ref name="cato" />

Clearly, "global warming" is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit.
... dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas [like] dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), ... governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power. <ref name="cato" />

If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6 °F during the 20th Century. <ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia</ref> The IPCC is desperate to claim the 20th century-- the warmest on record. Thus, tying the progress of modern mankind to our supposed planet imbalance problem. Unfortunately for the IPCC, that point is disputed as well. In 2008, it was discovered that tree rings in Finland were more accurate record of the warmest century. The current era was not the warmest period-- it was the period between 931 and 1180. <ref>[http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/archive/2008/6?page=2 The Trees of Finland; Temperature Readings and Historical Reconstruction] Tbirdnow.mee.nu Blog (with links to actual data sources), June 24, 2008</ref>

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century.

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

In addition, a number of the participants have testified to the pressures placed on them to emphasize results supportive of the current scenario and to suppress other results. That pressure has frequently been effective, and a survey of participants reveals substantial disagreement with the final report. <ref name="cato" />

Richard Lindzen wrote:
:Perhaps more important are the pressures being brought to bear on scientists to get the "right" results. Such pressures are inevitable, given how far out on a limb much of the scientific community has gone. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the strongest proponents of "global warming" in Congress are also among the major supporters of science (Sen. Gore is notable among those). <ref name="cato" />

Christopher Monckton wrote an article titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered.
:States that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change studies are flawed. The present analysis suggests the models failure to predict other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of radioactive forcing, no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter and feedback multiplier. In conclusion, that there may be no "Climate Crisis" and for governments to reduce emissions may be pointless or even harmful. <ref>http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm , Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered, July 2008</ref> This was published on a forum of the American Physical Society with the following disclaimer "The article has not undergone any scientific peer review" and "the APS disagrees with the articles conclusions" In fact, the APS disagrees with the article without ever reviewing it.

Ryan N. Maue:
:A doctoral student at the Department of Meteorology at Florida State University did a study of global tropical cyclone activity. Its conclusions state that global warming might be greatly overblown. <ref>[http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_617111.html# Global warming? More doubts] Pittsburgh Tribune, March 21, 2009</ref> Mr. Maue found that tropical cyclone activity worldwide "has completely and utterly collapsed" during the past two to three years with energy levels sinking to those of the late 1970s.

Dr. Vincent Gray:
:A member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and the level of gases in the atmosphere,” and "there is no serious threat to the climate" <ref>[http://americanfreedomnow.com/2009/06/04/the-panic-over-global-warming-is-totally-unjustified-says-vice-chair-ipcc/ “THE PANIC OVER GLOBAL WARMING IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED” says Vice Chair, IPCC] Americanfreedomnow.com, June 4th, 2009</ref>

Joe D’Aleo: Climatologist
:The International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project says new data "show that in five of the last seven decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled while carbon dioxide has continued to rise," and "'''The data suggest cooling''', not warming, in Earth's future." <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557 Shocker: 'Global warming' simply no longer happening] Worldnetdaily, March 22, 2009</ref>

Dr. John S. Theon:
:Retired senior NASA atmospheric [[scientist]], Dr. John S. Theon, the former boss of global warming alarmist James Hansen of [[NASA]], rebukes him declaring “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/01/28/former-boss-rebukes-nasa-global-warming-alarmist-hansen-agw-skeptic Former Boss Rebukes NASA Global Warming Alarmist Hansen, Is AGW Skeptic] NewsBusters.org, January 28, 2009 </ref>

Sammy Wilson -Ireland's environment minister
:He argues that global weather patterns are naturally cooling, not warming. He calls television ads that promote global warming as "an insidious propaganda campaign" peddling "patent nonsense." <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43255 Belfast Environment Chief Bans Climate Change Ads] AP, February 09, 2009</ref>

After the broadcast of his movie '[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]', filmmaker Martin Durkin's statements read <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32796 UK Broadcaster Scolded for Film on Global Warming] CNSNEWS July 22, 2008</ref>

*“Everywhere you are told that man-made [[climate change]] is proved beyond doubt,” “But you are being told lies.”
*“This is a story of how a theory about climate turned into a political [[ideology]] ... it is the story of the distortion of a whole area of [[science]].”
*“as the frenzy over man-made [[global warming]] grows shriller, many senior scientists say the actual scientific basis for the [[theory]] is crumbling.”

In late 2008, the [[AP]] published an article by its Science Writer Seth Borenstein, which is seen by skeptics as another example of one-sided, uncritical reporting on the issue by [[liberal media]]. The report stated that global warming was "a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid", and that "We're out of time", with Al Gore calling the situation "the equivalent of a five-alarm fire that has to be addressed immediately."<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D952LKOO1&show_article=1</ref> In response, Fox News (December 16, 2008) reported that scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming criticized the report as "irrational hysteria," "horrifically bad" and "incredibly biased", containing sweeping scientific errors and being a one-sided portrayal of a complicated issue. Geology professor [[David Deming]] stated, "If the issues weren't so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it", and accused Borenstein of "writing a polemic and reporting it as fact." Deming noted that "the mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980." The AP responded to criticism by stating that, "It’s a news story, based on fact and the clearly expressed views of President-elect Barack Obama and others."<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html Scientists Call AP Report on Global Warming 'Hysteria'] Fox News, December 16, 2008</ref>

Also in the discussion of the biased AP report, Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho stated, "There is little evidence to believe that man-made carbon dioxide is causing temperature fluctuation. Other factors, including sun spots, solar winds, variations in the solar magnetic field and solar irradiation, could all be affecting temperature changes."

The year 2008 turned out to be the coolest year since 2000, yet the seventh to tenth warmest year on record, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.<ref>http://news.eoportal.org/research/090127_res3.html</ref> According to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record.<ref>[http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.]</ref>

Richard S. Courtney, a U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expert reviewer and a U.K.-based climate and atmospheric science consultant says "Rubbish! Global warming is not 'accelerating," and "...that anybody who proclaims that 'Global warming is accelerating' is a liar, a fool, or both." <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/global_warming_debunked/2008/12/16/162489.html Global Warming’s Last Gasp] NewsMax, December 17, 2008</ref>

Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D., emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, asked, "What does it take to ignore 10 years of global cooling....? The answer is really quite simple — just follow the money!"

==Al Gore's Claims==

The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore's film, ''An Inconvenient Truth'', became the subject of a legal challenge by [[New Party]] member Stewart Dimmock. A school governor from Dover and father of two, Dimmock charged the Government with brainwashing children with propaganda by presenting Gore’s sci-fi film as science. In October 2007, Mr Justice Burton of London's High Court found that while the film was "broadly accurate", it contained nine significant errors,“in which statements were made that were not supported by the current mainstream scientific consensus”, some of which had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. He also found the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisers only worked to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/clearly_its_al_gore_whos_in_de.html American Thinker; ''Clearly It's Al Gore Who's In Denial'']</ref><ref>Times online, October 11, 2007 ''Al Gore’s inconvenient judgment''</ref>

Taken from the official transcript,<ref>[http://noteviljustwrong.com/images/nejw/docs/22161.pdf Stuart Dimmock and Secretary of State for Education and Skills]</ref> the nine errors the judge found were:

*1. Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future. This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore's 'wake-up call'. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

*2. Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming. In scene 20, Mr Gore states "that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand". There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

*3. Shutting down of the "Ocean Conveyor". According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

*4. Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

*5. The snows of Kilimanjaro. The film asserted that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidenced global warming. The Government's expert was had to admit that this is not correct. Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

*6. Lake Chad etc. The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

*7. Hurricane Katrina. In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

*8. Death of polar bears. In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.

*9. Coral reefs. In scene 19, Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate." The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Dimmock's lawyer, Mr. Downes, argued that by schools making available such film to its teachers, and if teachers then showed such film to their pupils, then this would inevitably result "in the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school, which is thus not only not being forbidden by the local education authority (and the DES), but being positively facilitated by them."

Mr Justice Barton stressed that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change. “It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film.

Justice Barton also stated that, “I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act.”<ref> BBC news, Thursday, 11 October 2007</ref>

In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that

*1. The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.

*2. If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.

*3. Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.<ref>http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html</ref>

Science and Public Policy took issue with the response to the ruling by Al Gore’s spokesman and environment adviser, and asserted that his film contains ''35 Inconvenient Truths''.<ref>[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths]</ref>

Related to above, while Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame, the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported,

:Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref name="sun">http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article</ref>

Regarding his claims that the snow cap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame, the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine stated,

:Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine." <ref name="sun" />

Many conservatives see Al Gore as an example of [[liberals]] using [[deceit]]ful tactics in important debates, i order to make a position seem more solid than it is.

==Reported effects of Climate Change==

Besides Global Warming, reported past or expected/possible future environmental and societal consequences of Climate Change include,

*Global cooling.<ref>http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/global-warming-causing-global-cooling</ref>

* Decreased food production.<ref> Fred Pearce, ''Climate change warning over food production,'' Newscientist.com, April 26, 2005</ref>

* Increased food production. <ref>[http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1127111.html] William Booth, ''Global Heating Could Benefit U.S. Farmers; Prices Seen Rising As Production Falls'' The Washington Post, May 17, 1990</ref>

* Killer cornflakes.<ref>Lisa Bricknell, Central Queensland University, at 10th World Congress on Environmental Health in Brisbane, AU. May 13,2008</ref>

* Shrinking forests.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print David Adam, ''Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change''] March 11, 2009, guardian.co.uk</ref>

* Increased tree foliage.<ref>http://www.greenfingers.com/articledisplay.asp?id=1734</ref>

* Increased productivity of high-elevation forests.'<ref>'Global Warming May Spur Increased Growth In Pacific Northwest'' Oct. 20, 2009, Forests Science Daily</ref>

* Melting glaciers.<ref>Global warming causing hundreds of Antarctic Peninsula glaciers to melt,''
June 6, 2007, The Hindustan Times</ref>

* Growing glaciers.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2043047/posts?page=51</ref>

* Increasing landmass in Antarctica.<ref>http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-warming-snow-job/</ref>

* Colder winters <ref>''Climate change could bring colder winters,'' March 13, 2003, Canadian Broadcasting Centre</ref>

* A new ice age.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/nov/13/comment.research/print Bill McGuire, The Guardian, November 13, 2003]</ref>

* Prevention of an ice age.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,296060,00.html Andrea Thompson, ''Global Warming May Cancel Next Ice Age''], Monday, September 10, 2007</ref>

* Taller mountains.<ref>Ker Than, ''Taller Mountains Blamed on Global Warming, Too'', August 4, 2006, LiveScience</ref>

* A lop-sided planet.<ref>Robert Roy Britt, June 29,2005 LiveScience.com</ref>

* Stronger hurricanes.<ref>''Global Warming: Warmer Seas Linked To Strengthening Hurricanes,'' Sep. 4, 2008, ScienceDaily</ref>

* Weaker Hurricanes.<ref>Randolph E. Schmid, AP Science Writer, ''Global warming may diminish Atlantic hurricane activity'', 04-17-2007, USA Today</ref>

* Shorter days.<ref>[http://www.itwire.com/content/view/11220/1066/ William Atkins, ''Researchers say global warming should cause shorter days''], ITWire, April 11, 2007</ref>

* Earthquakes and volcanoes, and other geological disasters. Attempts to prevent climate change may do the same.<ref>Richard Fisher, ''Climate change may trigger earthquakes and volcanoes,'' September 23 2009 Newscientist.com</ref>

* Earth exploding<ref>[http://nujournal.net/EarthquakeEnergyRise.pdf] Australian scientist Dr Tom Chalko, June 17,2008</ref>

* Shrinking brains.<ref>Gordon G. Gallup Jr., Human Nature (Vol. 18, Issue 2, 2007U)</ref>

* Shrinking sheep.<ref> Steve Connor, Science Editor, ''How global warming shrank St Kilda's sheep,''
Independent.co.uk, 3 July 2009</ref>

* Tiger Attacks.<ref>''Global Warming Linked to Indian Tiger Attacks'', Reuters, Mon Oct 20, 2008</ref>

* Shark attacks.<ref>[http://www.junkscience.com/news3/shark.htmlBruce Johnston, ''Shark attack on boat result of global warming''] Augsut 31, 1998, Electronic Telegraph (U.K.)</ref>

* Walrus stampede deaths.<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1939754/posts ''Global warming is blamed for walrus stampede deaths'', Associated Press - December 14, 2007</ref>

* Imminent cannibalism.<ref>Ted Turner, April 1, 2008, Charlie Rose PBS show</ref>

* The death of the the Loch Ness Monster.<ref>http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/global_warming_45.html</ref>

* [[Black Hawk Down]], when 18 members of a U.S. military team were killed in a helicopter crash in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993.<ref> Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass)</ref><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=32291</ref>

* The need for a drastic reduction of the earth’s population.<ref>http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/archives/one-less-child-environmental-extremists-warn-that-overpopulation-is-causing-climate-change-and-will-ultimately-destroy-the-earth</ref>

* A strong increase in people dying of [[AIDS]]<ref>Daniel Tarantola, University of NSW, Australia</ref> <ref>http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/?p=608</ref>

* Increased risk of civil war in Africa.<ref>[http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/november23/climate-civil-wars-112309.html?view=print ''Global warming increases risk of civil war in Africa,''] Stanford Report, November 23, 2009</ref>

* Child ''climate cops''.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70811</ref>

*Increase in depression.<ref>Emily Sohn Thurs., Discovery Channel, Dec . 10, 2009</ref>

* Increase in psychiatric illness.<ref>World Health Organisation</ref> <ref>''Climate change leads to psychiatric illness'' 04-08, 2008, Sify.com</ref>

* Increased anxiety and loss of sleep among many children.<ref>Alan Jones, The Scotsman, February 22, 2007</ref>

==2008 Presidential candidates on climate Change==

[[Bob Barr]] is the only major 2008 Presidential Candidate who has not adopted wholesale the theory of human-caused global warming.

According to his website,<ref>[http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/BA6709C3-B27D-4EF9-81E6-2BA9D6F8AB20.htm John McCain on Global warming.]</ref> [[Republican]] Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] will take a more "aggressive approach" to global warming which he has declared as "undeniable and urgent." He was supported in this in June 2008 by Republican governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] who said McCain was the "real deal on the environment".<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/30/MNDB11H66C.DTL&type=politics Schwarzenegger backs McCain on climate Change]</ref>.

In his own words, McCain says "the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it ''is'' real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a [[cap and trade]] proposal.... the debate is over."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es] Unless McCain believes that Global Warming is entirely or largely man-made, there would be no sense in supporting a cap and trade solution.

[[Barack Obama]] believes "that global warming is not just the greatest [[environmental]] [[challenge]] facing our planet—it is one of our greatest challenges of any kind." During his first 100 days in office, he would enact a giant and far-reaching [[tax]] "an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions that will reduce U.S. emissions by the amount scientists agree is necessary (80% by 2050). With worldwide cuts in emissions estimated to cost '''$45 Trillion dollars''' overall. <ref>[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article4079036.ece World needs $45 trillion energy revolution] Timesonline.uk, June 6, 2008</ref> He comments "Putting a price on carbon is the most important step we can to take to reduce emissions."<ref>[http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/Obama/tab1.html League of Conservation Voters] presidentialprofiles2008.org</ref>

==Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" Movie Claims==

A [[British]] court has determined that Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth], http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/10/09/court-identifies-eleven-inaccuracies-al-gore-s-inconvenient-truth, October 9, 2007</ref>

Those inaccuracies include the following

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found the film misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of [[Hurricane Katrina]] and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a [[scientific]] impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the [[Greenland]] ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic [[ice]] covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. The evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to [[New Zealand]]. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

===Critique of the Hockey Stick Reconstruction===
::''See also : [[Climategate#Hockey_Stick_Graph|Climategate: hockey stick graph]]''

*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf Corrections To The Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base And Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series] by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, ''Energy & Enviornment'' volume 14, 2003.
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by Michael Mann.
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.
*[http://www.image.ucar.edu/~boli/manuscripts/2007-LNA-TeA.pdf The ‘hockey stick’ and the 1990s: a statistical perspective on reconstructing hemispheric temperatures] by Bo Li, Douglas W. Nychka and Casper M. Ammann, ''Institute for Mathmatics Applied to Geosciences''; (Manuscript received 22 March 2007; in final form 28 June 2007).
*[http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase] by Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., Spring 1997; this article examines one of the main pillars of the global warming thesis.
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications] (''Energy & Environment'', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick
*[http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance] (''Geophysical Research Letters'', vol. 32, February 2005) - Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick


{{Climategate scandal}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
*''[[Massachusetts v. EPA]]''
*[[Liberal_hysteria#Global_Warming_Derangement_Syndrome|Global Warming Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Socialist Environmental Disasters]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/global-warming/ What Liberals Say - Category: Global Warming], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/12/attempting_to_stop_global_warm_1.html Attempting to Stop Global Warming is Futile and a Mistake, says letter to the UN]
*[http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004 Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate-conference]
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]
*[http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Refuting the Myth of Man-made Global Warming]
*[http://www.climateaudit.org Climate Audit], Steve McIntyre's blog
*[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate], blog by a group of climatologists including Michael Mann
*[http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html "CO2 Fairytales in Global Warming"]
*[http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm A complete list of things caused by global warming]
*[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Earth Sciences]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Liberal Bias]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Talk:Fidel Castro

2009-12-30T22:20:20Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Fidel Castro

2009-12-30T22:18:00Z

Matthew2208:

I’ve heard Castro called many things, but terrorist is not one of them, can someone explain why he is listed as a terrorist? Also could the information justifying that categorization be added to his page?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.'' (See [[Differences_with_Wikipedia]])
:see [[Terrorism]] for a description of a terroist. Castro certainly was one.
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist. If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so. The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear. The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Castro couldn't have been convicted of being a terrorist because he terrorized the legal authority that could have convicted him out of existence.
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 15:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That does seem to be a problem with the editorial policy (though I would say he used violence rather than terror to end the previous Cuban government), but I don’t make the policy (I’ve even argued against it). I’m just telling you what I gather the policy is. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By that definition Batista was a terrorist with his coup in 1934, just as Castro is, or George Washington for that matter...

It's all about the word "unlawful", which generally doesn't have the same meaning in different times and countries.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== DIctator/President ==

Interesting to note that Castro "has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959 and ''has called himself'' the President of Cuba since 1976," whereas [[Pervez Musharraf]] "''became'' President of Pakistan, ''via a coup''" (emphasis mine). What in essence is the difference? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:46, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:For a dictator, he certainly relinquished power without much of a struggle. [[User:Rugxulo|Rugxulo]] 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Castro Dead?==
Can we see some hard evidence suggesting this? Just because he is keeping to himself dosn't mean he has died. He is still the Secretary of the communist party--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:Maybe Fidel Castro is alive and even editing this site!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::Speculation is not necessary here as Castro is no longer running the show. His brother Raul Castro was innagurated as acting President in July 2006. Until such evidence is shown speculation of his death is ultimately baseless. Please do not add any. This is not a gossip site after all. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:02, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:::Matthew, you're clueless here. When someone is missing for 3.5 years and there is an incentive to lie about his fate, then he's presumptively dead. Communists don't define the truth. God does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::In October Castro allegedly met with the leader of Cyprus and a Chinese official. [http://nba.msg.com/photo/0a1W9IQclz2DV Here] is a supposed photo of Castro with Wu Bangguo. It's released by the Cuban state media, but apparently the (obviously liberal) AP found it sufficiently convincing as to endorse it.
::::Obviously it's possible that the leader of Cyprus (and at least three other leaders who have allegedly met him since July) was paid off to lie about this and the photo is of a lookalike (or older). But true or false, matters are perhaps not quite so simple as Fidel simply disappearing for the last few years, and we should carefully consider the evidence. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:13, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Fidel, like many dictators, had body and face doubles, like the one we famously killed of Saddam in the opening salvo of the Iraq invasion. It seems far more likely to me that they just passed a double off as Castro than that they bribed a foreign head of state. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::::[[Liberal denial]] illustrates its [[double standard]]. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no [[liberal]] will admit that Castro is likely dead also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Well, the difference there is that Natalie Holloway disappeared, whereas Castro hasn't been seen in public for years. By that logic Macaulay Culkin is also dead. But seriously, Castro certainly could be dead, but that doesn't mean he is. If I had to guess, I'd say he's not. I think if he had died they would have staged an enormous funeral for him with all sorts of parades, teeming with propaganda. Dictators love that stuff. But that's just my opinion. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 12:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I just noticed that this made "[[Liberal Denial]]." DanL seems to make a good point Andy. I guess what I don't see is:
*a) What motivation the Cubans would have to lie about Castro being dead and
*b) What motivation liberals would have to insist that Castro is alive if he really were dead. It seems like a really obscure point at best. Personally, I'm assuming that Castro is alive for the same reason everyone else does: dictators don't just pass away unnoticed. Or is there a historical precedent I'm missing? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 12:25, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I'm confused about whether you're saying you know he's dead or that you presume he's dead based on not being sighted in public. I just checked the news and there are quite a few references to him making statements recently. Are you saying someone is lying? If so, to what end? And the Holloway story is different in that she disappeared. You just haven't seen Castro lately. Others appear to have because they recorded his statements. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 12:38, 30 December 2009 (EST)

'''Motivation''' would primarily to conceal the power struggle while the fascists decide who's going to be the new dictator. Communists lie about everything else - particularly [[mass murder]] (see also [[genocide]]). The kind of political power that "comes out of the barrel of a gun" rather than the curtains of a voting booth is well disposed to deception. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:22, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:DanL and JDW seem to think that if a brutal communist regime claims someone is alive, then we should take that at face value even though he hasn't been seen publicly in 3.5 years. But they don't answer the question of why they believe communists when, for example, they probably wouldn't believe a similar claim that another missing person (such as Natalie Holloway) is still alive. As each day goes by without a public appearance by Fidel Castro or credible independent verification (e.g., a meeting with Republican congressmen), the chance Fidel Castro is still alive decreases. How much longer do DanL and JDW require before admitting that the chance has dropped to less than 50%? After 3.5 more years? 10 more years?

:Communists lie about everything. There's little reason to believe that the Russian dictator Yuri Andropov died when the communists said he did, given the long period when no one could confirm he was still alive either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::It's not just Cubans who say he's alive. Castro himself wrote several articles in the last few months and the president of Argentina met with him in Cuba. Do you think he's dead because you believe communists are in general liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 15:36, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::Well if you have doubts, feel free to fly down to Havana and see him for yourself. And while you're there, see about getting the right to criticize Castro's government...or the right to free speech in general, or the right to assemble freely with like-minded persons, or the right to attend the church of your choice, or the right to possess a gun just in case the government gets a tad-tyrannical. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:55, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict) Wow, Hector, that seals the case ... Castro supposedly wrote some articles! Of course that proves nothing.

:::Castro was a communist dictator. He reveled in worship of him by the public. After he's been missing for a period of time from self-serving public events, a period that started with a life-threatening medical condition and complex surgery, the chance that he is still alive decreases with each passing day. The [[liberal denial]] of this is remarkable.

:::Perhaps the closure by liberals will come when the New York Times finally runs a front page article asking these questions. Then, as soon as the communists can arrange it without being too obvious, they will announce that Castro just passed away.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:00, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::I don't really care either way since I don't have a horse in this race. If you'll notice, I'm just asking you questions, not taking a position one way or the other, so I'm not in liberal denial, whatever that is. I'm just concerned that you're not addressing that the president of Argentina met with him earlier this year. Hugo Chavez met with him more recently. Are these men liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:03, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Well, I guess your statement "I don't really care either way" constitutes the bonafide end of your argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:07, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::::I'm sorry I came off as flippant there. I don't care whether he's alive or dead, to be honest, but I do care that the article reflect the truth instead of speculation. Thanks for pointing out my error. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::What you need to do is to read the Bible as you said you try to do on your user page, specifically Revelation 3:14-18; it tells of what Jesus will do to a church that "doesn't really care one way or the other":
::::::::''And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.''
:::::::[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::Of course I don't take anything Communist regimes say at face value. They do indeed lie more than they tell the truth. Still I don't see the motivation in this case, as Castro is no longer even the leader, thus the power struggles Ed mentioned wouldn't be in play. Furthermore, I stand by my point. Dictators don't die unnoticed and unanounced: Stalin died and a massive funeral was organized overnight. Mao died and the same happened. Kim Il Sung, Hitler, you name it, no one kept their deaths a secret, because there was no reason to put off a big dramatic funeral and public outpouring of love for the Dear Leader. Can you name a single instance where a dictator died and his death was covered up?

::Not to mention, no one's touched my second question. What motivation would liberals have to ''deny'' that a dictator has died? To put it nicely, this whole issue sounds like shadow-boxing to me. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::I do not know about Fidel Castro, however in history there were cases in which a leader died and a weaker leader took over, pretending to serve the interests of the previous leader. If Raul Castro is unpopular, maybe he pretends his brother is alive to use his power? I am not saying that this happened, but it is not without precedent.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 16:59, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Raul Castro would not need to be popular if he was truly dedicated to being the next dictator as he is the leader of the armed forces. If he wished he could simply crush the opposition. That and gain massive sympathy through a propaganda campaign through his brothers death. Stalin did much the same thing with Lenin. He used the mans death to further his own gains. In fact Lenin's case was similar as he had suffered from a stroke that kept him from making public appearances. The USSR certainly had no incentive to lie about that.

Mr. Shlalfly your argument does not make much sense. You have not shown any incentive that there is to lie about his death. As I just explained above Raul would not need to lie as he has the absolute power in his country. Also please note that you are breaking Conservapedia commandement #5 by posting the opening of the article as -and is presumably no longer alive as of December 2009; the communists running Cuba have no incentive to risk challenge to their power by announcing that he passed away.- This is a personal opinion and is not backed up by any source and is purely speculation. I am going to honor the Conservapedia Commandments and change the heading in order to reflect what is known and not speculation. I trust that since this is within the code of conduct it is appropriate?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 17:17, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Fidel Castro

2009-12-30T22:17:09Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Fidel Castro

2009-12-29T21:02:39Z

Matthew2208: /* Castro Dead? */

Cold War

2009-12-20T23:07:26Z

Matthew2208:

The '''Cold War''' was political, economic and psychological conflict, together with regional hot wars, between the [[United States]],[[NATO]] and other allies, and the [[USSR]], [[China]] and their allies between 1947 and 1989.

Although there was no direct fighting between the superpowers, each country was involved in a number of [[proxy conflict]]s, most notably in [[Vietnam]], [[Korea]] and [[Afghanistan]]. The most tense moment between the two main powers came in 1962 during the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], which ended without escalation into warfare.

The Cold War was marked by a nuclear [[arms race]] between the two super-powers, and the unchecked [[proliferation]] of [[nuclear weapons]] was a cause for concern in many quarters. The Cold War also was marked by high levels of [[espionage]].

The root of the Cold War lies in [[Soviet]] [[expansionism]] and [[subversion]] of so-called "[[bourgeois regime]]s".

The tension during the war fluctuated, with the super powers going through periods of heightened conflict and also periods of improved relations. It ended on November 11, 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet overseas empire. History closed the books on the Soviet Union itself on December 25, 1991. It was replaced by 15 smaller countries, especially [[Russia]], which all rejected Communism and the Cold War.
==Causes==
Following the Russian Revolution in the closing days of [[World War I]], President [[Woodrow Wilson]] refused to recognized the communist government of Russia and contributed troops in support of the White Russians. Not until 1933 did the US recognize the Soviet government, and relations did not truly warm until Hitler's invasion of Russia.

While the US and the UK cooperated with Russia throughout [[World War II]], tensions began to deteriorate soon after the end of the conflict, notably over the division of Germany and the occupation status of Europe. In 1946, George Kennan, a [[Department of State]] [[diplomat]] stationed in [[Moscow]], wrote the ''Long Telegram'', in which argued for the necessity of [[Containment|containing]] the Soviet Union. His cable resonated with President Harry Truman's
administration, and the 1947 invasion of North Korea seemed to confirm Kennan's views{{fact}}.

==Conflicts==

===Early Fronts===

November 18, 1945, General Secretary of the [[Communist Party USA]] [[William Z. Foster]] told delegates to the National Convention that "on the international scale the key task is to stop American intervention in China." On December 4, 1945, the Communists staged a "Get Out of China Rally," while communist dominated [[labor union]]s put on work stoppages with the same slogan. Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.

August 31, 1946, Harold J. Noble wrote an article in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' entitled, "Our Most Dangerous Boundary." The author pointed out that the Soviet Union had garrisoned [[North Korea]] with a larger force than the Americans possessed in [[Japan]] and [[Manchuria]]. The Communists were disposed to invade at a moment's notice. Where the U.S. had a squad near the border commanded by a corporal, the Soviet Union had a battalion, commanded by an officer, equipped with motor transport, ninety per cent of which came from America. The Soviet Union had established a police state in North Korea and suppressed every political organization except the Communist Party.

In 1947, General Albert Wedemeyer made his report on China and Korea. The Korean part was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
:"American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the North Korean [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops." General Lyman L. Lemnitzer said that before June 1950, when the attack occurred, no aid had been sent but a few hundred dollars worth of bailing wire.<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

[[Owen Lattimore]] in the [[leftist]] ''New York Compass'' said that the U.S. should give Korea a "parting grant" of $150,000,000 and "let [[South Korea]] fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it."<ref> New York Compass, Jan. 17, 1949.</ref>

[[Chiang Kai-shek]] was caught between two wars—a war on China by Japan and a war on China by the Soviet Union. American leaders refused to see this and insisted on acting in the illusion that China was fighting the Japanese only and that Soviet Union was an ally. Then came the startling realization that the United States, too, like China, were engaged in two wars in Asia, one against a common enemy, Japan; the other against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States, with its ally China, fought the Japanese. But all the time the Soviet Union, with its satellite Comintern army in China, was fighting both China and the United States. The [[iron curtain]] that, with the [[Yalta agreement]], was rung down over American allies in Europe—[[Poland]] and [[Czechoslovakia]] and other little countries—now fell on China.

===Major Cold War Fronts===
====In the Americas====
* [[Cuban Revolution]] / [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
* [[Nicaraguan Revolution]], [[Contras]]
* [[Salvadorian Civil War]]

====In Asia====
* [[Korean War]] (1950-53)
* [[Vietnam War]] (1965-75)
* [[Soviet-Afghan War]], (1978-92)

==== In Africa====
* [[Angolan Civil War]]

====In Europe====
* [[Berlin Wall]]

===The Shootdown of Korean Airlines Flight 007===

Considered by many as the second or third most critical single incident of the Cold War, after the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] of 1962 and [[Able Archer 83]], the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] on Sept. 1, 1983 would signal a change in the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prompted by the subsequent deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in West Germany just 6 minutes from launch to Moscow. This precipitated the era of confrontation of 1983 and 1984 between the two nations. The world would once again witness what it saw as the blatent barbarity of what President Reagan had termed the "Evil Empire". Though the world had accepted that KAL 007 had exploded and crashed with no survivors of the 269 passengers and crew, there has most recently surfaced evidence to the contrary [http://www.rescue007.org/]. Democratic congressman from Georgia [[Larry McDonald]], a passenger aboard KAL 007, was the only member of Congress to have been reported killed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

==Breakup of the Soviet Union and Wars End==

The Western democracies, under the leadership of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Cold War with a policy that rejected detente and containment and instead relied on [[Rollback]]. An important element of this victory was Reagan's decision to commit to increased military spending, such as the "[[Strategic Defense Initiative|Star Wars]]" program. Reagan's decisions to intervene in Afghanistan while pursuing an arms race exacerbated structural weaknesses in the Soviet economy and pushed the USSR into an early decline.

In 1985, [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] become General Secretary of the Communist Party.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/11/newsid_2538000/2538327.stm Gorbachev Becomes Soviet Leader], ''BBC'', 11 March, 1985.</ref> Recognizing the systemic problems faced by Soviet society, he attempted the twin reform programs of [[Glasnost]] (openness) and [[Perestroika]] (restructuring). Combined with the disaster at Chernobyl and losses in the war in Afghanistan, the effects of Gorbachev's reforms quickly spun out of control. Glasnost allowed media attention to focus on problems which had long been buried by the state's propaganda regime, causing widespread dissatisfaction among Soviet citizens. In 1989, a wave of constituent republics began to seek autonomy from the Soviet Union. Most attempts at succession (with the exception of Lithuania) were met with no Soviet resistance.

A failed coup attempting to halt the USSR's decline brought [[Boris Yeltsin]] to power. Yeltsin oversaw further economic reforms, though he was heavily criticized for his reliance on "shock therapy", which caused severe economic disruption to ordinary Russians while allowing oligarchs to gain control of state industries.
The '''[[Cold War]]''' is well documented by political scientists and historians. Following are selected major scholarly books and articles in English, and some major memoirs.

==Further reading==
for a much longer guide see [[Cold War Bibliography]]
* Bacevich, Andrew J., ed. ''The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0231131585/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S00D#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Ball, S. J. ''The Cold War: An International History, 1947–1991'' (1998), British perspective; short summary; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-cold-war-an-international-history-1947-1991-by-s-j-ball.jsp online edition]
* Boyle Peter G. ''American-Soviet Relations: From the Russian Revolution to the Fall of Communism.'' (1993).
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1989)
* Crockatt Richard. ''The Fifty Years War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941-1991.'' (1995), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-War-United-Politics/dp/0415135540/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967506&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Friedman, Norman. ''The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War''. (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Year-War-Conflict-Strategy-Cold/dp/1591142873/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967539&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ''The Cold War. A New History'', 2005. [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-New-History/dp/B000GUJH8A/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States. An Interpretative History'' 2nd ed. (1990)
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100560159 online edition]
* Kegley Jr., Charles W. ed., ''The Long Postwar Peace.'' 1991
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Cold-War/dp/0231107730/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967647&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* LaFeber, Walter. ''America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1992'' 9th ed. (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/America-Russia-Cold-1945-2002-Updated/dp/0072849037/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_1/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search], liberal
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Mankind-United-States-Soviet/dp/0809097176/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567573&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search], liberal
* Lundestad, Geir. ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Politics since 1945'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/East-West-North-South-International/dp/1412907489/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193964045&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Russia, America and the Cold War: 1949-1991'' (2nd ed. 2008); short textbook [http://www.amazon.com/Russia-America-Cold-War-1949-1991/dp/1405874309/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252833741&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Mann, James. ''The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rebellion-Ronald-Reagan-History-Cold/dp/0670020540/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252833311&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''On Every Front: The Making and Unmaking of the Cold War.'' 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98945969&oplinknum=8 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Every-Front-Making-Unmaking-Cold/dp/0393030601/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967604&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]; liberal
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917–1991'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78888203 online edition]
* Westad, Odd Arne ''The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/052170314X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252833311&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]

==External Links==
*[http://home.att.net/~rw.rynerson/index2.htm Berlin 1969 - midpoint of the Cold War]

== See Also==
*[[Joseph McCarthy]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Containment]]
* [[Rollback]]

[[category:wars]]
[[category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:Military History]]
[[category:diplomacy]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Russian History]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Chinese History]]

Christianity

2009-12-20T23:02:25Z

Matthew2208:

{{Christianity}}
'''Christianity''' is the world's largest religion, having 2.2 billion followers. It is a [[monotheistic]] religion that professes belief in [[Jesus]] as the Son of [[God]]. Christianity takes its name from [[Jesus Christ]] meaning "Jesus the Savior" and "Jesus the Anointed One". Followers of Jesus are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref>

== Main Christian groups ==
[[Image:Anglican Christ Church.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Anglican Christ Church in Western Australia]]
'''The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:'''

* The [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] whom Catholics believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority over the Christian body of believers.

* The [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) also trace their roots back to the beginnings of Christianity, but do not believe in the Primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054.

* [[Protestantism]], the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 77 million baptized members) and the Lutheran World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]] could not be adequately reconciled with Papal prescriptions as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

== Christian Beliefs ==
Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed]] below:

<blockquote>I believe in one God, [[God the Father|the Father Almighty]], Maker of [[heaven]] and [[earth]], and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the [[Holy Spirit]] and the [[Virgin Mary]], and became man. And He was crucified for us under [[Pontius Pilate]], and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the [[Bible|Scriptures]]; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the [[Resurrection]] of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.</blockquote>

Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine and disagree on others. According to an online Harris poll from 2003 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in Heaven, 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in Hell, 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious dogma of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline.

Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See also: the [[Apostle's Creed]], [[Athanasian Creed]].

===God===
{{main|God}}
God is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. Christians are not polytheists because of the oneness of the divine nature (or essence). The doctrine of the Trinity is central to most (but not all) Christian theology.

A major theme of the Bible is love. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc.

The God of the Christians is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, all-powerful (omnipotent).

===Jesus===
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|180px|left|]]
During the reign of [[Caeser Augustus]] the Son (e.g. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnate as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At the age of thirty he was baptized by his cousin, the [[John the Baptist|Prophet John]], and began to preach in the area [[Palestine]]. About three years after his baptism, he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, prompting the Jewish power establishment to plot Jesus death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He came back from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the records of some of what Jesus did and said, but he did much more than those four books relate, as the Apostle John said in his Gospel.
{{Clear}}

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is love and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Jesus summarized his teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

Constant debate has resulted as to how a person should express love for God in their moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote>

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

In trying to understand the reason for the growth of Christianity in a pagan culture, it has been noted that while love of one's neighbor is not an exclusively Christian virtue, it appears that the primitive Christian church practiced it much more effectively than any other group.<ref>E.R. Dodds, 1970:136-137</ref> This is most likely due to the constant mention of hospitality and generosity to one's "neighbors" in the Bible. Jesus was especially passionate about caring for people in need:

Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you own and give the money to the destitute, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back and follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

In addition to sacrificially showing care for those within the community as well as to those without, (cf. Gal. 6:10) the Christians elevated the sanctity of life, opposing abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, suicide, and gladiatorial contests.<ref>Kenneth Scott Latourette, ''A history of Christianity'' p. 244</ref><ref> Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, Paul Copan, The Apologetics Study Bible, 274 </ref> While the primitive church tolerated the existing and pervasive cultural economic institution of slavery in the [[Roman Empire]], the mandate of equal pay and just treatment (Col. 4:1; Eph. 6:9) greatly ameliorated the treatment of slaves, while advising them to seek freedom if possible, (1Cor. 7:21) and requiring that the escape slave Onesimus be received back not "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved". (Philemon 1:6) The Christian ethos of love also motivated a great expansion in the building of hospitals.<ref>Albert John Ochsner, Meyer Joseph Sturm, ''The organization, construction and management of hospitals'', p. 17</ref><ref>Roderick E. McGrew, ''Encyclopaedia of Medical Care'', p. 135</ref> By 500 A.D., most large towns in in the Roman Empire had erected them.<ref>George D. Pozgar, ''Legal aspects of health care administration', p. 2</ref>

===The Atonement of Jesus on the Cross===
[[Image:Dalí The Christ of St. John of the Cross.jpg|thumb|The Christ of St. John of the Cross by [[Salvador Dalí]], 1951.]]
All Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, along with His resurrection, is an indispensable proclamation of a crucial event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to understanding His death on the cross.

# Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. Though there is ample recognition in the New Testament that others desired Him to die, and that the circumstances in which His path took him would bring Him to His end on earth, the mover of all these things was Himself and the will of the Father. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."
# Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect that way. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was for-planned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53). And so, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God".
# It was the belief in Scripture, that in His death a way back to God was made possible for those that were near to God—the Jews. And a way back to God for those that were far away—the Gentiles. That is why the New Testament saw in the requirements of God for Israel a fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah. He was the perfect Israel, taken out of Egypt, to redeem Israel. And that is why the New Testament saw in Jesus, a deepness to the incarnation of the Son of God, deeper than just a Jew of His time of a certain tribe. He was the "Second Adam" to redeem the sons of Adam. This encompassing perspective had further implications.

Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself - How can I make reconciliation with my enemies, with even the members of my own family, of race with race and people with people?; Does His death for the sins of the world include those who only partially understand, for the baby aborted, the feeble minded, and severely retarded?; For those who have never heard of Jesus, never been "enlightened", distant and remote in place and time?; Does His death for the sins of the world also include a remedy for the ills that have come as a result of those sins—certain sicknesses, ills of the mind, body and the soul? Do they "hold" for today?; Does His death make good, turn to the better, show the way, effect the way, of the illnesses that have befallen the world, not only by sin, but simply by the circumstances of life, of degeneration, of compounded dysfunction? How does the fruit of His death bring in somehow the Kingdom "among us"?

The death of the Son of God on the cross has provided the solution for sin, and it still holds its sway over the imagination and aspirations for the people of our generation.

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4).

However, Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17, and "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men" (Mark 2:28)

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often use the terms "saved" and "born again" interchangeably. Other Christians, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]]. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to stay saved. However, this is a common misconception of the text. It is rather referring to proving that one is a child of God by their "fruit" (things that they do and how they behave). Christians in the Reformed tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer [[John Calvin]], as well as the faith outlined in the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions) say that salvation is irrevocable and that it cannot be lost, if it were genuinely part of one's life to begin with. Reformed Christians (often called [[Calvinists]]) often point to Romans 8:38-39 as validation of their belief: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39; [[NASB]]). According to Calvinists, the reason it cannot be lost by natural things is because salvation was obtained through a supernatural being, namely Jesus Christ. This does not negate Jesus' human side, only that he was both one-hundred percent God and one-hundred percent man, according to the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (A. D. 451). The Bible also makes it clear that mankind cannot earn their salvation, and that it is a free gift.

== Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
[[Image:Jesus resurrected.jpg|thumb|left|200px|"The Resurrection" by Carl Heinrich Bloch]]
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history Gary Habermas is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:
The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref>
Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref>

===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===

The Fact of the Resurrection of Christ is a key element of the preaching of the message about Jesus and an essential of Christian belief. But there are also certain effects that this belief has on the lives of believers.

1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead, that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.

2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion. He was "declared to be the Son of God" by His resurrection. This brings believers in Him to a strong confidence in the determined power of God to both vindicate in their own lives and to bring His reign upon earth.

3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, their sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid. His resurrection, carries with it our knowledge that our sin with its attendant death has been totally and finally paid for.

4. It is a now living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real.

5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life, and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.

6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully under the Spirit's control, guidance, and empowerment. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolations, and consider that even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him, a restoration, and that tears, even now, are wiped away.

== Evangelism ==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]

[[Image:Gleyre The Departure of the Apostles.jpg|thumb|240px|The Departure of the Apostles by [[Charles Gleyre]].]]
 

==History of the name "Christian"==
The early Christian faith was sometimes called ''That Way'', (Acts 19:1,9,23; 24:22) and the church its adherents were also called ''Nazarenes'', (Acts 24:5) evidently after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived. Probably close to A.D 50 the [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26) records that "the disciples were called Christians first in [[Antioch]]." The title ''Christian'' is also used in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16, and likely is referred to in James 2:7, "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?"

==Early Church Community and Commitment: The Biblical Period==

The Bible records that that at least initially, the church was a single organic community, in which

:they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. {43} And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. {44} And all that believed were together, and had all things common; {45} And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. {46} And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."(Acts 2:42-47; 4:32)

This community was soon "scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles" due to determined persecution, which resulted in the dispersed disciples going "every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:1,4)

Other evidence indicates believers had their own houses and goods. (Acts 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 21:8; 1Cor. 11:22; 1Tim. 6:17; Philemon)

==Early Church Community and Commitment: the Post Biblical Period==

'''Justin martyr 100 A.D. - 165 A.D. From the "First Apology" (Defense)
'''

<blockquote>
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (Chapt. LXV - administration of the sacraments)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist = the Thanksgiving], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone... (Chapt. LXVl - of the Eucharist)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead...(Chapt.LXVll - weekly worship of the Christians)
</blockquote>

'''Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220), Early ecclesiatical leader and writer, in his ''Apology'' (response to pagan charges) in describing the early church community (197 A.D.): '''

:We are a body knit together by one faith, one discipline and one hope. We meet together as a congregation, uniting together to offer prayer to God. We pray for the emperors and all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for peace and for the delay of the final end. We read our holy scriptures to nourish our faith, hope, steadfastness and good habits. We hear exhortations and rebukes. We take such judging very seriously – as befits those who believe they are in the sight of God – especially seriously when anyone sins so grievously we have to cut them off from our prayer, our congregation and all sacred things. Our elders preside over us, obtaining that honor not by money, but by their established character. There is no buying and selling in the things of God. Though we have a fund, but not because people can buy religion. Once a month, anyone who wants to makes a small donation – but only he who is able and willing; there is no compulsion. It is not spent on feasts, but to support and bury poor people, to provide for orphans, the elderly old persons, victims of shipwreck and those in prison for their faith.<ref>Defense by Tertullian (39), Trans. Rev. S. Thelwall. Modernized, abridged and introduced by Stephen Tomkins. Edited and prepared for the web by Dan Graves.</ref>

'''Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Pontus & Bithynia (northern Turkey) from A.D. 111-113, reporting to emperor Trajan of Christians, whom such pagan rulers found intolerable:'''

:...in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

:... Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

:They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.<ref>Pliny the Younger Letters, 10.96 </ref>

==Also See==
[[Image:Orthodox churches icon artwork.jpg|thumb|Orthodox Church's icon artwork.]]
'''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Orthodox Church]]
*[[Protestantism|Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelical Christianity]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Pentecostal]]
**[[Plymouth Brethren]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Seventh-day Adventist]]

'''Disputed'''
*[[Christian Science]]

'''Other articles'''
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Church]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Messiah]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Persecution of Christians]]
*[[Red-letter Christian]]
*[[Sign of the Cross]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]

==Further reading==
===Encyclopedias===
* Bodensieck, Julius, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church,'' (3 vol 1965), ECLS perspective
* Brauer, Jerald C. ''The Westminster Dictionary of Church History'' (1971), 880pp
* [http://newadvent.org/cathen/index.html ''The Catholic Encyyclopedia'' (1907-1913)], old but highly detailed and online
** '' New Catholic Encyclopedia'', edited by the Catholic University of America, 17 vol. 1967-1979.
*Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' (3rd ed. 1997), 1840pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Christian-Church/dp/0192802909/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
* Elwell, Walter A., ed. ''Evangelical Dictionary of Theology‎'' (2001) 1312 pages; articles by over 200 Evangelical or Fundamentalist scholars
*Hastings, Adrian et al. eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought'' (2000) 808pp; 600 articles by 260 Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0198600240/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-4292297-2766841#reader-link excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
*''New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge'' (1911), ), major sources of older scholarly articles; mainline Protestant perspective
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.toc.html Vol. 1: Aachen - Basilians]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.toc.html Vol. 2: Basilica - Chambers]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.toc.html Vol. 3: Chamier - Draendorf]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc04.toc.html Vol. 4: Draeseke - Goa]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc05.toc.html Vol. 5: Goar - Innocent]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc06.toc.html Vol. 6: Innocents - Liudger]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc07.toc.html Vol. 7: Liutprand - Moralities]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08.toc.html Vol. 8: Morality - Petersen]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.toc.html Vol. 9: Petri - Reuchlin]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc10.toc.html Vol. 10: Reutsch - Son]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc11.toc.html Vol. 11: Son of Man - Tremellius]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.toc.html Vol. 12: Trench - Zwingli]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc13.toc.html Vol. 13: Index]

===Histories===
*Briggs, J. H. Y., Robert D. Linder, and David F. Wright. ''Introduction to the History of Christianity: First Century to the Present Day'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-History-Christianity-Century-Present/dp/0800638123/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
*Gonzalez, Justo L. '' A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon'' (2nd ed. 1987); [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Beginnings-Chalcedon/dp/0687171822/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation'' (2nd ed. 1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Augustine-Reformation/dp/0687171830/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 3: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Protestant-Reformation/dp/0687171849/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search vol 3]
*Horsley, Richard A. ''Christian Origins: A People's History Of Christianity, Vol. 1'' (2006), 318pp [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Origins-Peoples-History-Christianity/dp/080063411X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200886474&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A History of Christianity'' (2 vol 1975) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Beginnings-1500-Revised/dp/0060649526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1, to 1500], by leading Baptist scholar
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A history of the expansion of Christianity'' (7 vol 1939-1970), monumental history of missionary work worldwide
*MacCulloch, Diarmaid. ''The Reformation'' (2005), influential recent survey [http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
*McGonigle, Thomas D., and James F. Quigley. ''A history of the Christian Tradition: From Its Jewish Orgins to the Reformation'' (1988); ''A History of the Christian Tradition, Vol. II: From the Reformation to the Present'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Tradition-Vol-Reformation/dp/0809136481/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-15 excerpt and text search vol 2]
*Pelikan, Jaroslav. ''Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine'' (5 vol 1975-91) [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Doctrine-Medieval/dp/0226653757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search v. 3, 600 AD -1300]]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Reformation-1300-1700/dp/0226653773/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search vol 4, 1300-1700]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-History-Development-Doctrine/dp/0226653803/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 5, 1700-present] This is the standard history of Christian doctrine.
*Ward, Keith. ''Christianity: A Beginner's Guide'' (2008), 195pp

===United States===
* Ahlstrom, Sydney E. ''A religious history of the American people‎'' (1979) 1192 pages; classic history from broad perspective [http://books.google.com/books?id=5kFF6a1viGcC&dq=inauthor:ahlstrom&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Balmer, Randall. ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' (2nd ed. 2004), 655pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/encyclopedia-of-evangelicalism-by-randall-balmer.jsp ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' online edition]
* Lippy, Charles H. and Peter W. Williams, eds. ''Encyclopedia of the American religious experience: studies of traditions and movements'' (3 vol 1988) 1872 pages; standard reference work; long essays by scholars
* Noll, Mark A. '' A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada‎'' (1992), by leading Evangelical historian [http://books.google.com/books?id=VGF3wbzzy9QC&dq=intitle:christianity+inauthor:noll&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Queen, Edward L. et al, eds. Encyclopedia of American Religious History'' (3rd ed. 2 vol. 2009) 1200pp
* Reid, Daniel G. et al. eds., ''Dictionary of Christianity in America'' (199)
* Wooley, Davis C. ed. '' Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists‎'' (5 vol 1958-19820; 2565 pages

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Christianity| ]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]

Cold War

2009-12-20T23:00:57Z

Matthew2208: /* Breakup of the Soviet Union and American Victory */

The '''Cold War''' was political, economic and psychological conflict, together with regional hot wars, between the [[United States]],[[NATO]] and other allies, and the [[USSR]], [[China]] and their allies between 1947 and 1989.

Although there was no direct fighting between the superpowers, each country was involved in a number of [[proxy conflict]]s, most notably in [[Vietnam]], [[Korea]] and [[Afghanistan]]. The most tense moment between the two main powers came in 1962 during the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]], which ended without escalation into warfare.

The Cold War was marked by a nuclear [[arms race]] between the two super-powers, and the unchecked [[proliferation]] of [[nuclear weapons]] was a cause for concern in many quarters. The Cold War also was marked by high levels of [[espionage]].

The root of the Cold War lies in [[Soviet]] [[expansionism]] and [[subversion]] of so-called "[[bourgeois regime]]s".

The tension during the war fluctuated, with the super powers going through periods of heightened conflict and also periods of improved relations. It ended on November 11, 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet overseas empire. History closed the books on the Soviet Union itself on December 25, 1991. It was replaced by 15 smaller countries, especially [[Russia]], which all rejected Communism and the Cold War.
==Causes==
Following the Russian Revolution in the closing days of [[World War I]], President [[Woodrow Wilson]] refused to recognized the communist government of Russia and contributed troops in support of the White Russians. Not until 1933 did the US recognize the Soviet government, and relations did not truly warm until Hitler's invasion of Russia.

While the US and the UK cooperated with Russia throughout [[World War II]], tensions began to deteriorate soon after the end of the conflict, notably over the division of Germany and the occupation status of Europe. In 1946, George Kennan, a [[Department of State]] [[diplomat]] stationed in [[Moscow]], wrote the ''Long Telegram'', in which argued for the necessity of [[Containment|containing]] the Soviet Union. His cable resonated with President Harry Truman's
administration, and the 1947 invasion of North Korea seemed to confirm Kennan's views{{fact}}.

==Conflicts==

===Early Fronts===

November 18, 1945, General Secretary of the [[Communist Party USA]] [[William Z. Foster]] told delegates to the National Convention that "on the international scale the key task is to stop American intervention in China." On December 4, 1945, the Communists staged a "Get Out of China Rally," while communist dominated [[labor union]]s put on work stoppages with the same slogan. Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.

August 31, 1946, Harold J. Noble wrote an article in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' entitled, "Our Most Dangerous Boundary." The author pointed out that the Soviet Union had garrisoned [[North Korea]] with a larger force than the Americans possessed in [[Japan]] and [[Manchuria]]. The Communists were disposed to invade at a moment's notice. Where the U.S. had a squad near the border commanded by a corporal, the Soviet Union had a battalion, commanded by an officer, equipped with motor transport, ninety per cent of which came from America. The Soviet Union had established a police state in North Korea and suppressed every political organization except the Communist Party.

In 1947, General Albert Wedemeyer made his report on China and Korea. The Korean part was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
:"American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the North Korean [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops." General Lyman L. Lemnitzer said that before June 1950, when the attack occurred, no aid had been sent but a few hundred dollars worth of bailing wire.<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

[[Owen Lattimore]] in the [[leftist]] ''New York Compass'' said that the U.S. should give Korea a "parting grant" of $150,000,000 and "let [[South Korea]] fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it."<ref> New York Compass, Jan. 17, 1949.</ref>

[[Chiang Kai-shek]] was caught between two wars—a war on China by Japan and a war on China by the Soviet Union. American leaders refused to see this and insisted on acting in the illusion that China was fighting the Japanese only and that Soviet Union was an ally. Then came the startling realization that the United States, too, like China, were engaged in two wars in Asia, one against a common enemy, Japan; the other against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. The United States, with its ally China, fought the Japanese. But all the time the Soviet Union, with its satellite Comintern army in China, was fighting both China and the United States. The [[iron curtain]] that, with the [[Yalta agreement]], was rung down over American allies in Europe—[[Poland]] and [[Czechoslovakia]] and other little countries—now fell on China.

===Major Cold War Fronts===
====In the Americas====
* [[Cuban Revolution]] / [[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
* [[Nicaraguan Revolution]], [[Contras]]
* [[Salvadorian Civil War]]

====In Asia====
* [[Korean War]] (1950-53)
* [[Vietnam War]] (1965-75)
* [[Soviet-Afghan War]], (1978-92)

==== In Africa====
* [[Angolan Civil War]]

====In Europe====
* [[Berlin Wall]]

===The Shootdown of Korean Airlines Flight 007===

Considered by many as the second or third most critical single incident of the Cold War, after the [[Cuban Missile Crisis]] of 1962 and [[Able Archer 83]], the shooting down of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] on Sept. 1, 1983 would signal a change in the relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union prompted by the subsequent deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles in West Germany just 6 minutes from launch to Moscow. This precipitated the era of confrontation of 1983 and 1984 between the two nations. The world would once again witness what it saw as the blatent barbarity of what President Reagan had termed the "Evil Empire". Though the world had accepted that KAL 007 had exploded and crashed with no survivors of the 269 passengers and crew, there has most recently surfaced evidence to the contrary [http://www.rescue007.org/]. Democratic congressman from Georgia [[Larry McDonald]], a passenger aboard KAL 007, was the only member of Congress to have been reported killed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

==Breakup of the Soviet Union and "Wars" End==

The Western democracies, under the leadership of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]] won the Cold War with a policy that rejected detente and containment and instead relied on [[Rollback]]. An important element of this victory was Reagan's decision to commit to increased military spending, such as the "[[Strategic Defense Initiative|Star Wars]]" program. Reagan's decisions to intervene in Afghanistan while pursuing an arms race exacerbated structural weaknesses in the Soviet economy and pushed the USSR into an early decline.

In 1985, [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] become General Secretary of the Communist Party.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/11/newsid_2538000/2538327.stm Gorbachev Becomes Soviet Leader], ''BBC'', 11 March, 1985.</ref> Recognizing the systemic problems faced by Soviet society, he attempted the twin reform programs of [[Glasnost]] (openness) and [[Perestroika]] (restructuring). Combined with the disaster at Chernobyl and losses in the war in Afghanistan, the effects of Gorbachev's reforms quickly spun out of control. Glasnost allowed media attention to focus on problems which had long been buried by the state's propaganda regime, causing widespread dissatisfaction among Soviet citizens. In 1989, a wave of constituent republics began to seek autonomy from the Soviet Union. Most attempts at succession (with the exception of Lithuania) were met with no Soviet resistance.

A failed coup attempting to halt the USSR's decline brought [[Boris Yeltsin]] to power. Yeltsin oversaw further economic reforms, though he was heavily criticized for his reliance on "shock therapy", which caused severe economic disruption to ordinary Russians while allowing oligarchs to gain control of state industries.
The '''[[Cold War]]''' is well documented by political scientists and historians. Following are selected major scholarly books and articles in English, and some major memoirs.

==Further reading==
for a much longer guide see [[Cold War Bibliography]]
* Bacevich, Andrew J., ed. ''The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0231131585/ref=sib_dp_bod_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S00D#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Ball, S. J. ''The Cold War: An International History, 1947–1991'' (1998), British perspective; short summary; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-cold-war-an-international-history-1947-1991-by-s-j-ball.jsp online edition]
* Boyle Peter G. ''American-Soviet Relations: From the Russian Revolution to the Fall of Communism.'' (1993).
* Brzezinski, Zbigniew. ''The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century'' (1989)
* Crockatt Richard. ''The Fifty Years War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World Politics, 1941-1991.'' (1995), popular. [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-War-United-Politics/dp/0415135540/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967506&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Friedman, Norman. ''The Fifty Year War: Conflict and Strategy in the Cold War''. (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Year-War-Conflict-Strategy-Cold/dp/1591142873/ref=sr_1_2/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967539&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis, ''The Cold War. A New History'', 2005. [http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-New-History/dp/B000GUJH8A/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_0_0/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search]
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States. An Interpretative History'' 2nd ed. (1990)
* Gaddis, John Lewis. ''Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War'' (1987) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100560159 online edition]
* Kegley Jr., Charles W. ed., ''The Long Postwar Peace.'' 1991
* Kort, Michael. ''The Columbia Guide to the Cold War'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Columbia-Guide-Cold-War/dp/0231107730/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967647&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* LaFeber, Walter. ''America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1992'' 9th ed. (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/America-Russia-Cold-1945-2002-Updated/dp/0072849037/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_1/103-4827826-5463040 excerpt and text search], liberal
* Leffler, Melvyn P. ''For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Soul-Mankind-United-States-Soviet/dp/0809097176/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191567573&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search], liberal
* Lundestad, Geir. ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Politics since 1945'' (1999). [http://www.amazon.com/East-West-North-South-International/dp/1412907489/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193964045&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* McCauley, Martin. ''Russia, America and the Cold War: 1949-1991'' (2nd ed. 2008); short textbook [http://www.amazon.com/Russia-America-Cold-War-1949-1991/dp/1405874309/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252833741&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Mann, James. ''The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Rebellion-Ronald-Reagan-History-Cold/dp/0670020540/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252833311&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Paterson, Thomas G. ''On Every Front: The Making and Unmaking of the Cold War.'' 1992. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98945969&oplinknum=8 online edition]; [http://www.amazon.com/Every-Front-Making-Unmaking-Cold/dp/0393030601/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193967604&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]; liberal
* Powaski, Ronald E. ''The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917–1991'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=78888203 online edition]
* Westad, Odd Arne ''The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of our Times'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/052170314X/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and text search]
* Zubok, Vladislav M. ''A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Failed-Empire-Soviet-Gorbachev-History/dp/0807859583/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252833311&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]

==External Links==
*[http://home.att.net/~rw.rynerson/index2.htm Berlin 1969 - midpoint of the Cold War]

== See Also==
*[[Joseph McCarthy]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Containment]]
* [[Rollback]]

[[category:wars]]
[[category:Cold War]]
[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[category:Military History]]
[[category:diplomacy]]
[[Category:Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Russian History]]
[[Category:European History]]
[[Category:Chinese History]]

Communism

2009-12-20T22:56:50Z

Matthew2208:

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|200px|The [[hammer and sickle]] is the main communist symbol the hammer symbolizing industry and the sickle representing industry it is the symbol for the "unification" of the workers.]]
'''Communism''' is a materialistic and militantly atheistic ideology created to justify the overthrow of [[Capitalism]], replacing [[free market]] economics and [[democracy]] with a "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the [[means of production]] with "[[collective ownership]]" (actually [[nationalization]]).

Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which was dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist theory and practice==
[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena.

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the government owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.

Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.

Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1918 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion until World War II, when it discovered religion was needed to rally the people against the Nazi invaders. Like all authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>

== Atrocities and Repression ==
[[File:Montana de cadaveres en un gulag sovietico.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Victims of communist purges in a Soviet gulag.<ref>[http://www.cubaencuentro.com/es/cultura/articulos/la-condena-del-silencio-y-el-olvido-iii-38610 La condena del silencio y el olvido (III)]
La reacción visceral que inspiran los campos de concentración nazis no es unánime cuando se trata de enjuiciar y condenar el horror totalitario del gulag. Carlos Espinosa Domínguez, cubaencuentro.com, 09/07/2007.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for the downfall of the Soviet Union as well as for the whole Soviet block. It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment. The deployment caused great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Communism

2009-12-20T22:56:26Z

Matthew2208:

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|200px|The [[hammer and sickle]] is the main communist symbol the hammer symbolizing industry and the sickle representing industry it is the symbol for the "unification" of the workers.]]
[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
'''Communism''' is a materialistic and militantly atheistic ideology created to justify the overthrow of [[Capitalism]], replacing [[free market]] economics and [[democracy]] with a "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the [[means of production]] with "[[collective ownership]]" (actually [[nationalization]]).

Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which was dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist theory and practice==
[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena.

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the government owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.

Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.

Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1918 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion until World War II, when it discovered religion was needed to rally the people against the Nazi invaders. Like all authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>

== Atrocities and Repression ==
[[File:Montana de cadaveres en un gulag sovietico.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Victims of communist purges in a Soviet gulag.<ref>[http://www.cubaencuentro.com/es/cultura/articulos/la-condena-del-silencio-y-el-olvido-iii-38610 La condena del silencio y el olvido (III)]
La reacción visceral que inspiran los campos de concentración nazis no es unánime cuando se trata de enjuiciar y condenar el horror totalitario del gulag. Carlos Espinosa Domínguez, cubaencuentro.com, 09/07/2007.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for the downfall of the Soviet Union as well as for the whole Soviet block. It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment. The deployment caused great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

User talk:Matthew2208

2009-12-20T22:51:32Z

Matthew2208:

You're in violation of 90/10. More contributions, and less talk, please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:46, 18 December 2009 (EST)

My main talk has been on the essay. Any other is done through asking permission or opinions on what would make the articles better. I feel it is more important to ask what more senior members think rather than make immediate changes. If you would prefer I act then wait for opinions I will change my behavior to conform to that view.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 17:51, 20 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Communism

2009-12-18T17:37:13Z

Matthew2208:

== Say something meaningful ==
I recently judged several exhibits for the national history day. These were not about Communism but instead about Adolf Hitler, though the problems they had are also here in this article about communism. The problem with all of them is that everyone thinks its sufficient to say that Hitler was evil to have said something meaningful. Obviously this is not enough. Everyone has said this there's no unique analysis in it or really an analysis at all. Its all just emotive. Likewise the problem with this article is that there really isn't much in the way of analysis. All that is said is communism bad (be verbs such as is are over rated) again and again and again. Yes there are facts and statistics and that's great but really i think you've crossed an academic line here where your no longer explaining why things are bad (or perhaps good if you were to be a communist though given the setting i find this to be unlikely) but are instead just asserting that they are along with a few statistics. What this article needs in an in depth explanation of how communism functions both theoretically and in the real world. Therese nothing here about Marx's philosophy (though the article on Marx is much better than this one). Communism means more than the Soviet Union and China. Also i think there needs to be a section on primal communism (hunter gatherers) and interpretations as to weather or not they count as a communist society.
:Primitive behaviour is strictly nothing to do with the Marxist-Leninist communism we treat here. I think that the points are adequately made that the materialist, atheist and dirigiste aspects of Communism appeal to those of little natural ability and enable them to gain coercive powers to destroy freedom. Hitler and the Nazis were forged in the same mould. [[User:CedP|CedP]] 12:15, 26 February 2009 (EST)

==totalitarian nightmare==

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== very biased ==

This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]

:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== In bad shape ==

From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):
<blockquote>
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].
</blockquote>
--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?

::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::No,it's not like that.

:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.

:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.

Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

== Communism / China ==

Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:But we don't have agendas....

TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better.

My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!

Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.

So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism vs. Communism==
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!

:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society.

:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==

I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages?
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks.

Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress.
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them.

You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect.

There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}

:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here.
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here.

One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world.
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information.
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.

The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind.
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes?
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq.
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...
:Vietnam was a Republican war?

How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for.
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....

You should be ashamed of yourself.
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==

Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..."

The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !

One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}

:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]

::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.

:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Get your facts straight! ==

When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}

:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==

I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.

I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.

-Xenophon
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.

:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Category ==

I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== This article is a load of crap ==

A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}
:Rasch da, rasch! 
:Dann rührt euch von hin, 
:das du mir schafft! 
:Fort in die Schacht! 
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul! 
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}

::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of "Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

===Section Break===
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>

:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,
::''Evil people kill people''
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
<blockquote>
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]
</blockquote>
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
----

I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.

:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean.
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Exaggeration in the Introduction==

Cut:

:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.

This is a mixture of truth and fiction:
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights

In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.

It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.

[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Re-write Opening Sentence==
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."

That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}}

*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==

In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions.

My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.

Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.

What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==

I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
<--

Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):

:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."

:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential

:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."

:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"

:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.

[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "

:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society."

:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== 65- 100 million people killed ==

I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this :
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."

:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Employment ==

Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==

Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.

:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}}
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first.

To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports,

::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."

::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine."

:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."
</blockquote>

*Exactly so. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==

Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.

Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.

Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?

:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his work, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]

::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] 
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress?

::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)

==Capital Letters==
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:lol.gif]]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)

*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

== Am I, y'know… ==

…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)

== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==

Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)

== Discuss on talk page? ==

I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)
MakeTomorrow I would suggest you avoid editing this page due to a COI. All I see in your edits are an attempt to make Communism look better; maybe the one valuable thing I see is that you added Che Guevara to the notable communist.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:22, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Hang on a sec ==

Now, I'm not saying Communism has ever functioned, but still this page is slightly biased. I believe if this is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" that I've been looking, then maybe it should keep a sterile perspective of things.
--[[User:Reallyforeign|Reallyforeign]] 23:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

== Mistake ==

There's a mistake in the artle. In the section headed "Demise of communism", it states that each country in the former communist bloc has reformed to capitalism. This is not true, as Moldova remains Communist (though an untotalitatian, democratic form).

I'm new-- hope i'm right in thinking i should bring this up on the talk page before doing any editing :) --Dollfuss

:Thanks for pointing it out. Do you happen to have a source that we could use? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:39, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Ah, yes, sorry. Sources:

http://www.terra.es/personal2/monolith/moldova.htm

http://www.allmoldova.com/index.php?action=viewdoc&id=1063305563&lng=eng

The first site is perhaps clearer, as the second site doesn't clarify that 'PCRM' stands for 'Party of Communists in the Republic of Moldova'. -- Dollfuss

:The phrase "reformed to capitalism" does not make sense. The opposite of communist [[totalitarianism]] would not be a [[economic]] system but a [[political]] one, i.e., [[Democracy]]. Perhaps you were writing from a Marxist perspective? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::The opposite of communism would be a state where a social class of workers do not own the means of production. Hence the opposite is capitalism. Don't confuse your personal ideology and definition of communism with that agreed upon by political scientists, philosophers, economists and the rest of people who've actually made significant study of what communism is and means. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 17:22, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

==Problems==
This is more of an attack on the modern day attempts at implementing a communist system, than it is an informative page on the Communist system of political thought. There is a difference and I recommend creating an article dealing with political theory, as this page is fallacious and doesn't inform much on Communism at all.

== Theory Section ==

I've cleaned up the theory section as it was stocked with more than a few misconceptions [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 08:55, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:I reverted all your changes. For one thing, your comment about
::''countries commonly described as "communist,"''
:represents the usual quibble provided by communist apologists who refuse to judge Communism by its actual fruits.

:It doesn't matter what the "theory" is. The present article is not a critique of [[Marxism]] but about how actual Communist governments have behaved. Perhaps part of the evaluation of Communism (compared to democracy) should be about how the theory tends to be disregarded, distorted, or misused. It seems to be much harder to abuse democracy; maybe that's why God has blessed the United States of America so much.

:Some of your criticisms and other observations may be more useful in our [[Socialism]] article. You might write about the attempts to establish socialism in the USSR. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

So your argument is that there's no place for an explanation of communist theory in the theory section of the page on communism?
For that matter, to evaluate communism "compared to democracy" is as nonsensical as evaluating capitalism "compared to democracy" or evaluating apples "compared to oranges."
You'll note I've made no attempt to hide or downplay the horrible atrocities of the USSR or others, but generally countries that have described themselves as communist have been autocratic dictatorships. How on earth does attempting to hide the distinction between what the theory prescribes and the actions of countries that claimed to be communist support the goal of creating "the trustworthy encyclopedia" ? It seems your reverts are based on personal ideology more than any supported fact, and worse yet, in terms of theory are quite completely wrong. For instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat refers to "the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)" ([http://www.answers.com/topic/dictatorship-of-the-proletariat source])

Essentially, you don't seem to actually understand what communism is. Instead, you seem insistent on spouting half-truths, complete fabrications and false tautologies. I suggest you find another moderator for this page if you are unwilling to better educate yourself on the matter. May I suggest an introduction to Political Science at your local college or university?
[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 12:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Problems with the current theory section:

Commandment 1: Everything you post must be true and verifiable

"Communism is based upon Marxism, a philosophy which uses materialism to explain all physical and social phenomena."

:*This is false. The concept of communism dates back to at least the 6th century BC. Marxism is a political philosophy which seeks to implement communism. Marxism is based on Marx's theory of historical materialism, a materialist conception of history based on the analsys of labour and production.

"Economically, communism advocates a socialist economy in which the public owns the "means of production"."

:*This is true.

"In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "dictatorship of the proletariat"."

:*This is riddled with errors, No country has had communism imposed upon it. Some countries have sought to implement communism, but invariably have become dictatorships with socialist economies. Dictatorship of the proletariat is NOT communism, and not synonymous with the nationalization of private enterprises.

{{QuoteBox|For Marx, the transition period between capitalist and communist society ‘in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat’ (Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875). The proletariat would assume state power aiming to eliminate the old relations of production. It would replace these relations with a class dictatorship which would both place the productive forces under proletarian control and pave the way for the abolition of class distinctions culminating in a classless society. The Communist Manifesto (1848) stated that the result would be ‘an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all’.

Marx used the expression very infrequently and when he did employ it, he appeared to understand the word ‘dictatorship’ as meaning a concentration of power or forces rather than as a repressive situation. A different model of transition is offered in The Civil War in France (1871) based upon the experience of the Paris Commune. It stressed the immediate dismantling of the state apparatus, the decentralization of power and popular democratic control over and management of civil society. The ‘commune’ and ‘dictatorship’ models coexist uneasily in Marx's work.

:-from the The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics}}

This drives all market-based economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.

:*This might be supported if a communist country actually existed, but none has existed to date . In theory, the nationalization and merger of enterprises would increase inefficiency by eliminating redundancy. With an even distribution of wealth, shortages only occur if the total production of the nation falls.

"In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions of souls."

:*This is true, but not related to communist theory, which is what this section is actually about.

"Members of the ruling party (see Nomenklatura) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see queuing)."

:*This has been true in some countries ruled by communist parties, but not all, and stands contrary to the aims and theory of communism.

"Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by Karl Marx, and its modifications under Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong, advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any government."

:*This is true, although the use of supposedly here seems like a callous attempt to undermine the point.

"The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former USSR or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially atheist and attempted to suppress all religion."

:* This is mostly true, although you may wish to do some reading on the USSR's relationship with the orthodox church, as its considerably more nuanced than this phrase might indicate. However, this, once again, has nothing to do with communist theory.

"Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion."

:* Got any sources to support that?

"Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable Animal Farm."

:* It's not just left-wing critics. The very constitution of the USSR states that it is a socialist country, not a communist one.

"Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no incentive within the economic theory."

:* In the countries you describe as "communist," there is variation between wages of workers commensurate with ability. In a true communist society, there's no actual need for wages or money at all. This being said, you've limited yourself to the assumption that the personal accumulation of wealth is the only possible incentive in an economy.

"Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft."

:* I take it you did not actually read the quote from Marx.

{{QuoteBox|When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.}}

::Nothing is taken away, it's a change in the way property is generated.

[[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 16:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I wish you would read my article, [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. We can cooperate better if you refrain from assuming I am arguing for something, or that I don't understand something.

I know there is a difference between Communism, the political system established in USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea etc. - and "[[communism (stateless society)|communism]]", the stateless society envisioned and/or predicted by Marx. The present article critiques big-C Communism on account of its utter failure to achieve small-c communism. Perhaps you felt I was ignoring the difference between the two terms?

If you want to work with me on this article, I hope you will join me in being consistent about the usage of the Big-C and small-c terms. It will only confuse the reader of we fail to distinguish between political systems created by Communist Parties and Workers Parties - and the stateless ideal society envisioned by Marx that would come after the socialist states created by the parties "withered away". Do you agree that there is a difference and that we should tell the reader clearly about it? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:23, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:I'd also argue that you should distinguish between the oppressive failure Communist states such as Stalin's USSR, and the Democratic 'diluted' Communist nations such as Cyprus and Moldova today. They don't adher to strict collectivisation, but they aim to achieve more equality of wage and status in the existing system, as they agree with the theoretical Communism. PLEASE don't go and tar them with the same brush as the oppressive USSR. -- Dollfuss.

I'm not tarring anyone with a brush, but calling a spade a spade. A government based on Communist theories deserves to be called "Communist". Quibbles about whether that government has attained the professed ideal of Communists are unrelated to the type of government.

The real point here (and the [[elephant in the living room]]) is that no Communist government has come anywhere near to "achieving communism". Hence, the old Russian joke about the securest job in the Soviet Union ("waiting for communism to be achieved").

My '''critique''' of Communism is that it has absolutely no chance of achieving its stated ideal. It espouses violence to gain control over the means of production but has no provision for how the new rulers and masters would ever be motivated to give up their control voluntarily. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Neither Cyprus nor Moldova, with ruling Communist parties, indulge in violence to achieve their aims. Saying that all Communist parties do is a generalisation and a simplification. -- Dollfuss

== My edits a few minutes ago ==

I've reverted a couple of Jjameson's edits, and here I explain why.

He removed the claim that communism was atheistic, citing in his edit comment http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/CC/fca5.html. This page doesn't, in fact, directly address that question, and I'm not sure why Jjameson thought it did. It does, however, implicitly ''support'' the claim that communism is atheistic:
{{QuoteBox|...Cabet's plan for a perfect utopian community based on the principles of evolutionary communism ... Cabet believed that environment determined human nature and that people, whom he saw as perfectible and rational, would produce a perfect society when placed in a perfect environment.}}
Evolution, believing that (only) the environment determines human nature, and that people could, without God, produce a perfect environment, are all atheistic ideas.

Jjameson was also a bit heavy-handed with the {{tl|fact}} tag, although looking through them, most of them are legitimate. So I only removed one. I hope to remove a couple more before too long, once I find a reference for a couple of quotes.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:38, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, I was trying quickly to find a source that supported that some christians (or, for that matter, any religious people) promote Communism. The search result seemed like that supported my claim, but I had not properly read the entire article. I am curious, however, how Wikipedia can have such a lengthy article on Christian Communism[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Communism] without such a thing existing. Perhaps I am being fooled by Wikipedia's liberal bias?[[User:Jjameson|Jjameson]] 19:22, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

:: I'd say that you've been fooled by Wikipedia's anti-Christian bias! More to the point, that there might be a Christian ''version'' of communism doesn't refute that communism, as invented, is inherently atheistic. A parallel is the existence of "theistic evolution", a view that says that God created by using a method (evolution) that was designed to explain life without God being required! The mere existence of a self-contradictory point of view does not refute that the views are contradictory.
:: Communism and Christianity do, in a sense, have a lot in common, which might go some way to explaining the existence of so-called Christian communism. As I saw an atheist write many years ago (this is from memory, not a direct quote), the difference between communism and Christianity is that communism is driven by force, whereas Christianity is driven by love. That is, communists (supposedly) share their wealth because they have to, whereas Christians share their wealth because they want to. The other big difference is the result: Communism fails economically, because it takes away the incentive to work. Christian countries succeed economically (and America is the classic example (over the long term)), because there is an incentive to work.
:: Wikipedia wouldn't compliment Christianity in this way, which is why you're unlikely to learn this from them.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:42, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

== Is Communism Atheistic In Nature? ==

Of course it is. A lack religion is fundamental to the concept of Communism/Marxism. Sources have been provided, I don't see a need to edit war over it. --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 19:17, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

This quote is from Karl Marx in his "Communist Manifesto", section II (Proletarians and Communists): [http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html]
:''"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."'' [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:56, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

::Could that quote not be implying that all forms of religion are evil or wrong but instead imply that the government should have no hand in religion?

== Generalisation. ==

Ed Poor, please reply. I stated that it's just wrong to accuse every communist state of violence. Stalinist Russia may have indulged in Violence, but communist Cyprus and Moldova today aren't violent at all. It's just dishonest.

You might as well accuse Christian states of violence, citing the Christian Austria of May 1932- July 1943 as "proof" due to it's Christian ideology and violent repressive tendencies. -- Dollfuss.

*Dollfuss, please read our Conservapedia Commandments, which you are in violation of with your constant talk, talk, talk, and absolutely no substantive contributions. This is an encyclopedia project, a conservative, Christian friendly one, not a debating society or posting board. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:04, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Unexplained edit revert ==

I would like to kindly ask for an explanation for why somebody has a problem with me changing the sentence "It is based on Karl Marx's proposed establishment of a "classless society", but '''its philosophical basis is so deeply flawed that''' no Communist country has ever achieved its stated goal..." by removing the bolded portion. I was simply trying to make Conservapedia a better, more un-biased, place. If you could tell me what is wrong with that, I would greatly appreciate it. [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 23:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
:Sorry I didn't leave a revert reply. If it was bias, then I agree you were right. However, it is true and therefore it returned to the paragraph. Don't take offense, I appreciate your contributions here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:00, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
::First of all, thank you for that very civil response. However, I must point out that it seems to me to be an unfair statement. Mainly, it is because I feel that Communism was, in and of itself, not "bad", as it was trying to create a society where everybody was equal. The problem was that the governments who claimed to be Communist were not actually Communist, they distorted it hugely for their own gain. At the very least, could the portion in question be changed to "its philosophical basis is widely believed to be flawed, such that..."? [[User:Luminite2|Luminite2]] 00:15, 10 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I don't have a problem with that statement.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:32, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Pros and Cons ==

Ok. I'll admit that COmmunism is not perfect, yet there are some pros,

1) cheap public services, Soviet Trains were much more effective and cheaper than American or European
2) Full employment
3) Brilliant education, I went to a cuban school, they have 100% literacy rate and are brilliant if you want to do medicine

----

Communism and racisim should bge included. Marx said that,"the classes and the races to weak to adapit to the new conditions must perish in the revolutionary holocoast. He belived that the Polish people had no reason to exisit. For information I would watch "The Soviet Story".
-jowns.

== Main Image ==

Somehow the image just doesn't seem to give readers a good view into communism. I think it could go better in the article about mass murder. What if we changed the picture to something more relevant about what communism is? A Picture of Stalin?
--[[User:Cidd11|Cidd11]] 12:09, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
:I agree...the "Goddess of Democracy" just doesn't convey the image of communism that should be here. Why not put in a pic of the Chinese kid facing down the tank? Or a pic of the Soviet gulags; or the hundreds of thousands of skeletons from the Cambodian killing fields; or the Berlin Wall. I think those would illustrate it much better. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:25, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

== Communist purges ==

I just changed the text under the gulag photo to "victims of communist purges" as "victims of communism" just didn't sound very compelling. Purges gives a better impression of what those governments were all about.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:25, 6 November 2009 (EST)

== Scripture ==

Does anyone have an example of the Scripture that communists quote being used? It just seems to take up space. If we put in an example that might make it a little more usefull in the article. Otherwise I have never heard this used in the defense of communism.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:48, 27 November 2009 (EST)

If no one has any interest in this section I am opting to remove it. Though I would like anyone of the opinion that we should keep it to say so. I do not think it benefits the article.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 12:37, 18 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T00:49:27Z

Matthew2208:

This is a well stated and completely rational essay that is sure to draw much criticism. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The essay seems to go beyond Christianity into speculation in order to try to gin up a contradiction. For example, you claim that "God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it." Where is the justification for that premise, on which your conclusion is based?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 16 December 2009 (EST)
:To enter Heaven, without first needing to be saved or forgiven by God, a man would need to live a perfectly sinless life. This is not achievable by any person ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"). God knows this because of man's Original Sin. This is not mere speculation on my part; it's a widely-accepted theological concept. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:57, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I see this as a perfectly logical article. Though it simply could be taken to arrive at the rationale that God is a merciful God who is willing to bend the rules of logic in order to arrive at a conclusion that would save all men save those who reject it. Though it could also expose a flaw in the teachings of Christianity if we apply much of our own standards of logic. Though that merely begs the question of who would have the more supreme logic, man or God? I know it sounds like a cop out but it really should be taken into consideration for this discussiom even if only on theoretical grounds. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Neither the essay or the comments here even cite or quote the Bible. Hence the title of this essay needs to change. Any suggestions? If none, then I will move this to "Essay:Logic and One Man's View of Christianity"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly with all due respect he paraphrased the Bible in his last comment. Or does in your opinion a paraphrase not even come close to a quote? Unless you have a valid argument against this articles points or something of your own to contribute it would be nice if you simply stayed out of the discussion as it is very thought provoking and an interesting debate. Inserting a rather pointless comment about changing the title is completely redundant and against the purpose of the discussion. Please put in a comment on content or an argument for or against in your next response as stimulating the discussion is what this essay is for.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:38, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:The quote "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", which is uncited in the essay, is Hebrews 9:22. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", here on the talk page, is Romans 3:23. The requirement that man should live a perfectly sinless life is Matthew 5:48. Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim is first described in Isaiah 53:6.
:My reference to "earthen vessels" is an allusion to Isaiah 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:6.

:I generally prefer to paraphrase or allude to scripture, because we are all Biblically-literate here, and I assume people can recognise the references even if I don't cite chapter and verse. So, yes, it is true that I did not provide footnotes, but the scriptural basis is there in plain sight (for those with eyes to see).

:The foundational assumptions which I mentioned are found in:
:* Genesis 1, 2
:* Timothy 2:4
:* Revelation 21:27
:* Romans 6:23
:* Hebrews 9:22

:What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message ''X'' to be true, then ''Y'' and ''Z'' can be deduced from that, and if ''Z'' is true, then that leads us to ''A'', ''B'', and eventually to ''C''....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::(EC) There is far too much interpretative distortion in this essay for this to be entitled "the Bible." Just to take your first example from Hebrews 9:22 about shedding blood, that is a reference to mostly ''animal'' sacrifice in the Old Testament tradition, the audience of the essay (Letter ''to the Hebrews''). Yet your essay treats that like it must always mean the shedding of human blood.

::An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::Yes, Hebrews 9:22 refers to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. I referred to the shedding of blood, I never said it always needed to be human blood, and I expect anyone familiar with the Bible to know that too. However, I did not make that distinction explicitly clear, so for that I apologise. Under the Mosaic Law, animals were ritually sacrificed as part of atonement for sins. Jesus's death functioned as the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, capable of cleansing ''all'' people of ''all'' their sins once and for all, without the need for any further sacrifices. Or have I been misinformed countless times by countless Christians? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're trying to sing a tune of one view Christianity, but it's slightly off key and even if it were on key it would be merely one view. That's fine for you to try, but you're not sticking to the Bible as the entry title pretends. The Letter to the Hebrews is exactly that: an effort to evangelize Jewish people by casting Christianity in terms of their tradition. From one level of indirection, you then jump to two more levels of indirection, and then try to find a logical problem. The trouble is, the problem is more likely to be in your extrapolation than in the Bible.

::::The Bible is completely logical. If you stick with that, then we can have a productive discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly again with respect please try to contend with what is being said. Your comments are counter productive. As the previous commentator stated Eonic, You are merely reading one view of the Bible. Though I'm slightly fuzzy on the point your trying to make about a perfect sacrifice. Yes Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, yes Jesus forgives all sins. You are reciting something we all know. I'm assuming your point is why are we not all instantly granted salvation then?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: Andy - I trust we can have a productive discussion without needing to assume from the outset that your point of view is right and that mine is wrong. That may turn out to be the conclusion that we reach, but it is not the place to begin.
: You say that my view of Christianity is slightly off key, and that it is only one view. I'd like to clear this up first, before we talk about anything else. My understanding of Jesus's role in the New Testament is the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Like the lambs at the first Passover, whose blood stained the doorsteps of the Jews in Egypt and thereby saved them from the angel of death, or the animals of whom burnt offerings were made to atone for sins, Jesus's death and resurrection purges man of his sins and rescues him from death. This is the view I have absorbed from reading the Bible, singing hymns ("there is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins / and sinners washed beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains", or ''salvatoris hodie sanguis praegustatur in quo Sion filie stola candidatur'' - today is the Saviour's blood first tasted, in which the daughters of Zion whiten their robes), reading tracts handed to me on the street and engaging the street preachers in discussion, debating with Christians on the internet, etc...
: So, before I proceed any further with my argument, can you explain where my summary is off-key, or where my misunderstandings lie? I was under the impression that this was the orthodox Christian view, so it's something of a surprise to be told that it's just one view (one among how many others?). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:46, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Eoinc, your entry has the wrong title if you want to debate a Christian view. Your title "Logic and The Bible" implies that you're going to actually start from the Bible, quote from it, translated it, dissect it, and so on. You're not doing that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: Can you please explain where I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the concept of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, ''before'' we worry about whether I chose the right title? I'd like to stick with one point at a time. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're doing everything ''except'' basing your analysis on translating, analyzing and quoting the Bible. I'm going to change the title to avoid the misleading use of the Bible in it. Pick another title, such as "Logic and One View of Christianity."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eonic, maybe it would be best if you simply ignored Mr. Schlafly for now as he does not appear to be interested in debate. Though my question to you is now that you have reached your point. I must ask where does the illogical contradiction stem from?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:22, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: (EC) I had been writing that I object to the renaming of the essay, on the grounds that it assumes I am wrong. My essay does not concern itself with translating the Bible, but it represents a core Biblical message in a manner which I feel was critical but accurate. Therefore, I would need to be shown otherwise before I agreed that the title needed to be changed. But now I see that Andy has changed the title anyway.
: But never mind. What's done is done. Now that the title is more to your liking, Andy, can you explain where I am wrong in my above summary? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Matthew2208, I hoped that I had explained myself clearly on the essay page. What I'm describing is not a formal logical contradiction, but a more informal case of a logical absurdity. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: I see now. You just appeared to be deviating from the essay in the comments. I disagree with your point since (to use a crude analogy for now) it would be sort of like a judge giving out a pardon and the only catch is that people accept it. Would it then be illogical for the judge to say that all who did not accept the pardon should then recieve the punishment?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:49, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T00:44:00Z

Matthew2208:

This is a well stated and completely rational essay that is sure to draw much criticism. [[User:DaveGBx|DaveGBx]] 08:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)

The essay seems to go beyond Christianity into speculation in order to try to gin up a contradiction. For example, you claim that "God sets a standard of behaviour which is so high that He knows no man can attain it." Where is the justification for that premise, on which your conclusion is based?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 16 December 2009 (EST)
:To enter Heaven, without first needing to be saved or forgiven by God, a man would need to live a perfectly sinless life. This is not achievable by any person ("for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"). God knows this because of man's Original Sin. This is not mere speculation on my part; it's a widely-accepted theological concept. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 17:57, 16 December 2009 (EST)

I see this as a perfectly logical article. Though it simply could be taken to arrive at the rationale that God is a merciful God who is willing to bend the rules of logic in order to arrive at a conclusion that would save all men save those who reject it. Though it could also expose a flaw in the teachings of Christianity if we apply much of our own standards of logic. Though that merely begs the question of who would have the more supreme logic, man or God? I know it sounds like a cop out but it really should be taken into consideration for this discussiom even if only on theoretical grounds. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:07, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Neither the essay or the comments here even cite or quote the Bible. Hence the title of this essay needs to change. Any suggestions? If none, then I will move this to "Essay:Logic and One Man's View of Christianity"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:13, 16 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly with all due respect he paraphrased the Bible in his last comment. Or does in your opinion a paraphrase not even come close to a quote? Unless you have a valid argument against this articles points or something of your own to contribute it would be nice if you simply stayed out of the discussion as it is very thought provoking and an interesting debate. Inserting a rather pointless comment about changing the title is completely redundant and against the purpose of the discussion. Please put in a comment on content or an argument for or against in your next response as stimulating the discussion is what this essay is for.--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:38, 16 December 2009 (EST)

:The quote "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin", which is uncited in the essay, is Hebrews 9:22. "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", here on the talk page, is Romans 3:23. The requirement that man should live a perfectly sinless life is Matthew 5:48. Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim is first described in Isaiah 53:6.
:My reference to "earthen vessels" is an allusion to Isaiah 29:16 and Jeremiah 18:6.

:I generally prefer to paraphrase or allude to scripture, because we are all Biblically-literate here, and I assume people can recognise the references even if I don't cite chapter and verse. So, yes, it is true that I did not provide footnotes, but the scriptural basis is there in plain sight (for those with eyes to see).

:The foundational assumptions which I mentioned are found in:
:* Genesis 1, 2
:* Timothy 2:4
:* Revelation 21:27
:* Romans 6:23
:* Hebrews 9:22

:What follows from that is my (very minimal) analysis of that. Most of it consists of the construction of an analogy. If what I had written had been more along the lines of "so, if we take the Christian message ''X'' to be true, then ''Y'' and ''Z'' can be deduced from that, and if ''Z'' is true, then that leads us to ''A'', ''B'', and eventually to ''C''....", then it would be fairer to call it "one man's view". But in fact all I've done is to restate the Christian message. The "final catch" in my last paragraph is the well-known John 3:16. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:42, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::Your essay is very interesting, as it shows how Jesus is trying to reach to you, and how you struggle with what you've been falsely taught. You fall just short of explicitly stating the alleged 'contradiction' in the Bible, in the manner you describe here (if X then Y thus Z). I think it would be very beneficial for yourself if you tried to, as you would have the opportunity see where your argument fails. Regards,--[[User:TSpencer|TSpencer]] 08:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::(EC) There is far too much interpretative distortion in this essay for this to be entitled "the Bible." Just to take your first example from Hebrews 9:22 about shedding blood, that is a reference to mostly ''animal'' sacrifice in the Old Testament tradition, the audience of the essay (Letter ''to the Hebrews''). Yet your essay treats that like it must always mean the shedding of human blood.

::An essay on "Logic and One Man's View of the Bible" is fine and welcome. But you haven't limited your essay close enough in the Bible to call this "Logic and the Bible."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::Yes, Hebrews 9:22 refers to the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law. I referred to the shedding of blood, I never said it always needed to be human blood, and I expect anyone familiar with the Bible to know that too. However, I did not make that distinction explicitly clear, so for that I apologise. Under the Mosaic Law, animals were ritually sacrificed as part of atonement for sins. Jesus's death functioned as the ultimate, perfect sacrifice, capable of cleansing ''all'' people of ''all'' their sins once and for all, without the need for any further sacrifices. Or have I been misinformed countless times by countless Christians? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 09:53, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're trying to sing a tune of one view Christianity, but it's slightly off key and even if it were on key it would be merely one view. That's fine for you to try, but you're not sticking to the Bible as the entry title pretends. The Letter to the Hebrews is exactly that: an effort to evangelize Jewish people by casting Christianity in terms of their tradition. From one level of indirection, you then jump to two more levels of indirection, and then try to find a logical problem. The trouble is, the problem is more likely to be in your extrapolation than in the Bible.

::::The Bible is completely logical. If you stick with that, then we can have a productive discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly again with respect please try to contend with what is being said. Your comments are counter productive. As the previous commentator stated Eonic, You are merely reading one view of the Bible. Though I'm slightly fuzzy on the point your trying to make about a perfect sacrifice. Yes Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, yes Jesus forgives all sins. You are reciting something we all know. I'm assuming your point is why are we not all instantly granted salvation then?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: Andy - I trust we can have a productive discussion without needing to assume from the outset that your point of view is right and that mine is wrong. That may turn out to be the conclusion that we reach, but it is not the place to begin.
: You say that my view of Christianity is slightly off key, and that it is only one view. I'd like to clear this up first, before we talk about anything else. My understanding of Jesus's role in the New Testament is the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. Like the lambs at the first Passover, whose blood stained the doorsteps of the Jews in Egypt and thereby saved them from the angel of death, or the animals of whom burnt offerings were made to atone for sins, Jesus's death and resurrection purges man of his sins and rescues him from death. This is the view I have absorbed from reading the Bible, singing hymns ("there is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel's veins / and sinners washed beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains", or ''salvatoris hodie sanguis praegustatur in quo Sion filie stola candidatur'' - today is the Saviour's blood first tasted, in which the daughters of Zion whiten their robes), reading tracts handed to me on the street and engaging the street preachers in discussion, debating with Christians on the internet, etc...
: So, before I proceed any further with my argument, can you explain where my summary is off-key, or where my misunderstandings lie? I was under the impression that this was the orthodox Christian view, so it's something of a surprise to be told that it's just one view (one among how many others?). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:46, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Eoinc, your entry has the wrong title if you want to debate a Christian view. Your title "Logic and The Bible" implies that you're going to actually start from the Bible, quote from it, translated it, dissect it, and so on. You're not doing that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:57, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: Can you please explain where I have misunderstood or misinterpreted the concept of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, ''before'' we worry about whether I chose the right title? I'd like to stick with one point at a time. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:04, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Eoinc, you're doing everything ''except'' basing your analysis on translating, analyzing and quoting the Bible. I'm going to change the title to avoid the misleading use of the Bible in it. Pick another title, such as "Logic and One View of Christianity."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Eonic, maybe it would be best if you simply ignored Mr. Schlafly for now as he does not appear to be interested in debate. Though my question to you is now that you have reached your point. I must ask where does the illogical contradiction stem from?--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:22, 17 December 2009 (EST)

: (EC) I had been writing that I object to the renaming of the essay, on the grounds that it assumes I am wrong. My essay does not concern itself with translating the Bible, but it represents a core Biblical message in a manner which I feel was critical but accurate. Therefore, I would need to be shown otherwise before I agreed that the title needed to be changed. But now I see that Andy has changed the title anyway.
: But never mind. What's done is done. Now that the title is more to your liking, Andy, can you explain where I am wrong in my above summary? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:: Matthew2208, I hoped that I had explained myself clearly on the essay page. What I'm describing is not a formal logical contradiction, but a more informal case of a logical absurdity. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::: Ah okay. I see where your going with this now. It simply seemed that you were deviating from the essay here in the comments. Though the logical absurdity here seems to be more beneficial than harmful wouldn't you say? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:44, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Talk:Canada

2009-12-18T00:29:08Z

Matthew2208: /* Slight error */ new section

==No Room For Unsubstantiated Claims==

Why is it necessary for me to keep correcting the work of vandals? This page is not for comparing Canada to the United States. This is a page for reporting facts about the country. If I was so inclined, I could come up with some really nice things to say about Canada that make us look much better than the United States- but I don't. It's people that come in here and try to drag down my country that make their country look bad. Lose the attitude of superiority. This is not "An American Site". This is a wiki which is open to users around the world. If this site is to gain credibility, then it has to be balanced. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== About Canada ==

This is an encyclopedic entry on Canada. This not a page designed to highlight how the US is better than Canada. Please take your heads out of your hind quarters. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Marijuana ==

On the subject of Canada exporting pot to the US, I don't see the big deal. It is fair to include that, as it is something that we aim to improve. You say we supply your 5% like its a bad thing? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

You should have seen waht was there before I softened it up a little. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 00:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Conversely, we should probably avoid putting in America exporting cocaine to Canada due to similar pettiness. [[User: Billytorbay]]

== Canada's Response to SARS ==

Comparisons of the incidence of SARS in different jurisdictions is problematic, because it depends on health care professionals diagnosing the illness. In the US, for example, an unknown respiratory illness was reported which might have been diagnosed as SARS in Ontario. In fact, no real diagnosis of a "syndrome" can be made, because a syndrome is merely a collection of symptoms. Only when a virus or other cause is identified can a true diagnosis be made. The best known example of this is AIDS, which was later found to be caused by HIV infection.

During the epidemic, Chinese and American health officials may have wished to minimize its perceived gravity, while Toronto officials were more concerned with containing the actual illness. At the same time, the Canadian and Ontario governments largely ignored the problem, which they saw as a local matter.

The main article implies that Canada had a higher mortality rate for SARS because of its public health care system. While that is an interesting hypothesis, it would be helpful if the writer could provide a comparison of the treatment given to SARS victims to show how improved care in Ontario's hospitals could have improved the rate.

:I agree whole heartedly. However, the problem we are left with is that what is there now is a compromise from the original contribution. A very bitter user contributed a handful of sections that made Canada look like the worst country in the world to live, and was rife with tabloidization. We need more editors to squeeze out those with fuzzy logic. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:44, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

The Sars section should be removed. It is one of the least relevant things about Canada or even Toronto. It's not topical. I'm sure even Torontonians have forgoten about it.

==Top 10 places to live in the world==

We really need a citation for that. According to whom? A travel magazine? The UN? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:51, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Human Trafficking ==

I do not believe that this fits in the article on Canada. It provides no information on Canada as a country, it just highlights some opportunities for improvement. It's not something that anyone would allow done to an article on the United States, so why allow it here? --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness in this entry ==

Why is it that most of the recent changes in this article have been people adding foolishness, malarkey, and drivel? That people like Crocoite, TK, Fox, Karajou, and RobS have had to devote so much time to repairing this article (and kudos to them for doing so) is particularly frustrating when you consider that there are still no entries for the NWT, Nunavut and most of the provincial capitals. As well, most of the articles about the provinces are quite minimal and need to be augmented. In addition, there is virtually no mention on Canada's significant contributions to WWI and WWII in those articles. There is lots of work to be done here so if you are thinking of vandalizing an entry out of boredom or a desire to see your name in print, why not channel that energy into posting something productive?
--[[User:Regulas|Regulas]] 07:57, 6 June 2007

:Excellent comment Regulas. From your entry above, it appears you could make a significant contribution to this article and I encourage you to do so. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 10:24, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== previously reverted edits ==

I was curious: I am a Canadian, and so I thought it might be interesting to read this article. I came across a small problem, being from Montreal. I noticed that the article accuses Canada of having lower standards of education indirectly, quoting McGill's grading scheme - which happens to be unusual in Canada. Most of the schools in Canada follow a grading system identical to or similar to the U.S. system (which is not cited), and McGill also does not pass a student with a D, which makes the effective failing grade 54%, which is minimally different from the U.S.'s 59%. I recommend that this particular passage be removed, as it is highly misleading. May I remove it? I do not want to be accused of vandalism or of arbitrarily removing information. [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 23:33, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...I don't think you actually have to walk on eggs so gingerly, Nihiltres! Please make common sense edits, and cite your material properly, and there won't be a problem. ''If there is, please let me know.'' I do suggest, coming from a family that has many teachers, that 54% verses 59% isn't what any teacher would call minimal. In that 5% of difference are how many students? I am merely trying to point out things that people take for granted saying on WP, won't skate here, in our Conservative world. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:57, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I'm sure that there's good reason to make the change, just I'm not sure how to find a source for what would seem to be a norm - people do not usually write news reports saying that "life is normal." I'll try to find a couple of sources for the correction, perhaps using the grading schemes of other schools. As for walking on eggs, I plan to do that while here - offending Conservapedians is the last thing that I want, as it reinforces negative feelings where cooperation and friendliness might otherwise reign. I think that if Conservapedians want a problem on Wikipedia fixed, commenting on the talk page with a courteous explanation of the problem might prove effective at solving many problems of bias or correcting factual inaccuracies. The [[Golden Rule]] is what I have in mind here. :) [[User:Nihiltres|Nihiltres]] 11:07, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

There actually is no "Canadian grading system" because, as the article points out, education is a provincial responsibility. In fact it varies among institutions within individual provinces. Generally speaking, institutions with lower grades required to pass have higher marking standards. An example is that passing grades at community colleges are usually higher than at universities. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 17:02, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sea to sea not from the bible ==

In none of the references of this article is it claimed the origin of the expression "sea to sea" is grounded in the bible, thus I have modified this line.

"The country's motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare", or "From Sea to Sea" (taken from Psalm 72:8 - "He shall have dominion from sea to sea.") [1]"

to be

"The country's motto is "A Mari Usque Ad Mare"

[[User:Qc|Qc]] 16:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it is, Canada's Motto is based on "From Sea to Sea" from Psalm 72:8. (See http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm) There was a Private Member's Bill in 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/10/northern-motto060310.html) to change it to "From Sea to Sea to Sea" (That is the [[Atlantic]], [[Pacific]] and [[Arctic]] Ocean's that proposed a change, but it did not pan out, like most Private Member's bills.

I would suggest we change it back, but I'll add the reference from the Canadian Heritage Website.
--[[User:Thornhiller|Thornhiller]] 19:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== Canada's Economy ==

Why isn't there any mention of its nominal gdp ? it's close to 1.5 trillion dollars, between Spain and Brazil.
ppp gdp is good to use when you're comparing the economies of poor countries to rich countries but it's not realistic. What makes more sense, Iran's economy is the same size as Australia's, or it's much smaller than Denmark's ?

==culture and education==
The section on education grade scales is incorrect, it is up to individual schools, and universites to decide their own grade scales. Also, how is stating Canada doesn't do well in the summer olympics relevant to our culture?

==Canadian Healthcare==

Is this meant to be a joke? I'm not sure exactly where you're getting these figures for wait times, but as a former administrative employee in a Montreal hospital, I can most assuredly say that the figures are not in the least bit accurate. Non critical surgeries do have wait times, but they are substantially less than the "four to eight months" this article claims. Critical life threatening surgeries are seen to immediately.

Non surgical care (which is not mentioned in this article yet of great importance) is also leaps and bounds above established private services. My grandmother, who is currently 98 years of age, has broken her hip twice in the past five years and received an outstanding level of care from hospitals (free service), care homes (also free), physiotherapists (once more, free) and social caretakers who go to her house (you guessed it, free)both times.

In addition, the cost and availability of pharmaceutical products is not discussed. Medicines essential to life are freely distributed at hospitals, prescription medications are available at pharmacies for a nominal service charge (which is rarely far above 20$ in my experience), whereas over the counter drugs are readily available at prices equal to other First World nations.

I would ask that this article be improved and the facts straightened out, because this sounds very much like a broken Ronald Regan recording. [[User:MrCrawford|MrCrawford]] 14:27, 23 June 2008 (EDT)
:If you have good sources for what you stated, you are welcome to make improvements. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==style points==
I used ''The Canadian Style'', item 2.16 for the plural of "lieutenant governor" [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 23:49, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

== In the spirit of the main page... ==
Should we add a section on "Canadians and uncharitableness"? ;)--[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:17, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== First Paragraph ==

Shouldn't the first sentence just say that Canada is a country and maybe pinpoint it geographically rather than compare it to USA? I'm going to do a rewrite if no one objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 00:51, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Check our logo. I object to all of your edits so far, most of which are LIEberal carping. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 00:53, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

I signed up specifically to complement the author(s) of this article. Conservapedia takes a lot of crap from a lot of people, but this particular article is surprisingly accurate and non-biased. Again, kudos.[[User:Bulshoy|Bulshoy]] 16:43, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== Canada-US Relations Page? ==

Canada and the United States have a long and complex relationship. Perhaps an article detailing the history of this relationship can be created? I'll happily write a draft if the subject matter has not already been dealt with in another article (I couldn't find one).[[User:Bulshoy|Bulshoy]] 16:47, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
::very good idea. get one started and I will add to it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:18, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

== crime ==

taking indicators where Canada is worse than USA and ignoring those where it is better is an unfortunate technique that tends to hurt the conservative cause. Canada of course has a conservative government. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:47, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

: If you don't to educate readers, I guess "Canada has atypical Western culture crimes; assaults, burglary, drugs, rape and murder." For the record, I support Canada's Conservative government. Also, I support the Catholic Church even though we have a section about scandals.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:48, 23 June 2009 (EDT)
::Canada's murder rate does not get mentioned--it's one-third of USA. Actually the numbers are about REPORTS of crimes. Canada has a very good police system and people do report crimes . Other countries have bad police and people do not report rapes and assaults, which are far more frequent than in Canada. Probably murder is the best indicator because it does get reported in most countries.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 06:10, 23 June 2009 (EDT)

== GDP should be listed; out of date info ==
why is it like that ? Canada had the 8th largest nominal gdp in the world in 2007 and last year it was over 1.5 trillion dollars. ppp gdp is not an economic measure highly regarded by groups like economist.com, imf, world bank. {{Unsigned|Canguy}} -- 11:16, 5 August 2009

:You signed up, therefore an editor, and the page isn't locked. So the reason you didn't update the information is? --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:33, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Slight error ==

There was a slight error in the culture section as it read "neighbouring states United States" I simply changed the wording. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 19:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)

Canada

2009-12-18T00:28:01Z

Matthew2208:

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village." <ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

==Flag and anthem==
The Canadian national flag was officially adopted February 15, 1965; prior to that time and subsequent to Confederation in 1867, Canada used a variant of the Red Ensign, a British merchant flag, as its national flag. The Liberal government refused to hold a referendum on the subject; instead the public was invited to submit designs.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/df3_e.cfm Birth of the Canadian Flag]</ref> The introduction of the new flag was not without controversy.

In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:
<blockquote>The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgment of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag ).<ref>[http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/cultural/flag/national-flag-canada.html The Debate Over the Maple Leaf Flag]</ref></blockquote>

While the debate has been largely forgotten today, the Red Ensign can still be seen flying on some private homes and the debate does reemerge into the public domain occasionally. <ref>[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070321.wxflag21/BNStory/National/ PM wants Red Ensign to fly at Vimy, sources say]</ref>

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.

==People==
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largely cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world <ref>.http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than the neighboring United States. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

===Sports===
see [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The next winter Olympics, to be held in 2010 will be held in Vancouver and Whistler.

====Cultural Style====
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot". Canadian and U.S. polls habitually confirm citizens of both countries view the relationship with each other in a highly positive light, and consider each other with a special respect afforded to common allies. <ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>

====Education====
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kindergarten beginning at age 5 through grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and separate (e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% ) report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.

The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of senators appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governor General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The Governor General is, in the absence of the Queen, Canada's Head of State, and the Commander-in-Chief of the [[Canadian Forces]]. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, based on the British system.

All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while Her Excellency [[Michaëlle Jean]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--Michaëlle Jean
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Party leader Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. As a Member of Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended 12 years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by corruption and ethical failures, despite the economic progress Canada achieved while the Liberals were in power. In a subsequent federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) has a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) now has 37 seats, and two independents also sit in Parliament.

===Policy===
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite growing Canadian annoyance with restrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong supporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, and is perceived by the western provinces as wielding undue influence on the Federal Government. Until Albertan Stephen Harper became prime minister in 2006, the western provinces had sometimes expressed concern that Ottawa did not fully attend to their oil interests. Ontario, believes that it pays out significantly more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec Secession Movement====
There are separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defence.

The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force and the Reserve Force. The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defence spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism & reconstruction operations, and another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.
===Business===
Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]
[[File:O-bad-for-canada.jpg|thumb|300px|Leading Canadian newsmagazine evaluates Obama's threat to Canada, June 29, 2009]]

Canadians worry that Obama's economic policies will damage Canada's economy, especially [[cap and trade]], the Buy America rule in the 2009 stimulus, and environmental hostility to Canadian oil produced from oil sands.
===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.

==History==
* see [[History of Canada]]

==Further Reading==
* '''see [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* DK Publishing. ''Canada'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by Hugh Thompson (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Canada-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0789495619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249580319&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 very good entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' (2003). 3rd edition of textbook
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' (1983). 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== External Links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] the major historical data source
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

===Political Advocacy Websites===
*[http://www.canadadivided.com/ Canada Divided]
*[http://www.projectalberta.com/ Project Alberta]
*[http://onthefencefilms.com/video/twowomen.html Two Women]
*[http://www.westcan.org/ Western Canada Concept]

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-18T00:22:55Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T23:25:28Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T23:24:42Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T03:39:15Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T03:38:27Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Essay: Logic and One View of Christianity

2009-12-17T03:07:42Z

Matthew2208:

Talk:Socialism

2009-12-09T23:24:01Z

Matthew2208: /* Main Image */

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Laughable bias ==

"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."

Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.

' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'

I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
== Incentives ==

I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.

== "Socialist" Britain ==

Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.

::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.

how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?

:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== DAB's version ==

DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Let's not get carried away here, please ==
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.

RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)

Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Compromise?==
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)

::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

==Inaccurate==
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Poor Move ==
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==

This article begins by stating.

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.

1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil.
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him.
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed.
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"

No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words.

Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places.

:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

==British socialism==
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Just Plain Wrong ==

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.

::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)

:::Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.

::::If there countries having a "socialist" system with less than totalitarian control, we can describe them also. I just thought it would be good to start by describing the Communist approach, since that is the model or ideal that most people look to when comparing [[capitalism and socialism]]. The Nazi variant permitted individual ownership, but [[von Mises]] says the results were similar because the state maintained price controls and so on.

::::We also need to distinguish between the economic aspects of socialism and the political aspects of "socialist" countries. For example, in Sweden people are allowed to emigrate, but in Cuba they are not. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:28, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

== Would like to add a paragraph about my country (Norway) ==

If its all the same to you I'd like to write about our system wich is currently socialist-democratic. Then again most of our parties are socialist to some degree. Any objections?

Also, the article seems to have mixed up communism with socialism. I assure you, socialism in this day and age bears a much stronger resemblance to the US govermental system than the dictatorship that was soviet russia.

LOL this again. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:35, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Can you be more specific? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:42, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Also Add Ethiopia ==

Someone needs to add Ethiopia to this article as Ethipia used to be socialist. Also, include the Ethio-Somalia War.

==Liberal propaganda about Chile==

Removed from article:

:In the first year of Allende's, the economic policy showed decidedly positive results, including a 12% industrial growth an 8.6% increase in GDP, as well as major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%). However, these gains were only temporary due to American intervention. American copper interests in Chile, which controlled 80% of Chile's copper production, reacted violently to Allende's nationalization. The United States set about placing an economic stranglehold on Chile designed to, in a famous quote by Richard Nixon, "make the (Chilean) economy scream". Classified documents have also revealed the extent of the United States' involvement in the 1973 coup d'etat that overthrew Allende, installing and supporting dictator [[Augusto Pinochet]] in power. Pinochet is known to have detained and tortured thousands of domestic dissidents by its secret police.<ref>http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm</ref>

This is a typical kind of one-sided argument. The point being made is that Chile was doing fine under Allende until the US helped Pinochet thwart his "reforms". Actually, Allende was trying to make Chile like Cuba, and Pinochet stopped Allende's attack on Chile's economic and political freedom.

We need to cover all this in [[History of Chile]]. Perhaps, like Wikipedia, we should also create a [[1973 Chile coup]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:20, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

*Pinochet loyalists ... still revered him for implementing the macroeconomic reforms, which eventually raised the standards of living nationwide.
*Pinochet lost power in a renewal of democratic elections. [http://nylatinojournal.com/home/eagles_in_fall,_lions_in_spring/analysis/a_divided_chile_contemplates_pinochet_s_passing.html]

There's a [[Chile: Two Visions|book]] which covers the mess Allende made of the economy:
:This book is a study of Chile's turbulent recent history. It covers Salvador Allende's socialist revolution and explains how it sank Chile into chaos, economic deprivation, political turmoil, and illegality. It covers Chileans' repudiation of the Allende government three years later and their call to the military to intervene after the August 1973 congressional censure of Allende failed to stop Allende or convince him to resign.
:By winter 1973, Chileans were desperate, as famine loomed in Chile and disorder reigned in the streets. Allende's government had so destroyed the productive apparatus that on Sept. 6, 1973, President Allende announced: "We do not have the most minimal supply of flour, at most for three or four days." [http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html]

Even the ultra-Liberal [[NPR]] agrees that Allende was botching things up:
*Allende was implementing socialist economic policies in Chile, with disastrous results. Gen. Pinochet finally agreed with other military officers that they had to stop Allende . . . [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6606013]

Liberals never fail to label Allende "democratically-elected", but he got less than a majority of the vote and:

:the Chilean parliament denounced Allende for abrogating the Chilean constitution. [http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050607_guilty.htm]
::Remind me, who was it sent the tanks onto the streets and the planes into the air to overthow a democratically elected Government? Pinochet or Allende? And which major superpower supported that overthrow? [[User:BrianTS|BrianTS]] 10:12, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

:::If you're not going to read the references or respond to what I actually wrote, then you should limit your comments to our [[debate pages]]. This page is for improving the article. Try [[Debate:When is revolution justified?]] or something like that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:19, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

==Grammatical Edit and Rebuttal==
I made a small grammatical edit and included a brief rebuttal of pro-socialist sentiments expressed in "Controversy" section. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:38, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:You thought the article was pro-socialist? Please don't revert the edits of Administrators, that is against our policy, JeffC. There were paragraphs removed, so it captured my attention. Please explain further. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:47, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

::I didn't remove any content. The 'controversy' section offers some brief pro-socialist nonsense that I thought could use a short rebuttal to support the overall message of the article. I apologize for reverting your edit. If you have time, please review the content I added and re-revert if appropriate. Thanks! [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 23:57, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Since the piece is mainly Richard's now, I have asked him look into this. Thanks for explaining, JeffC! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== Need section on Socialistic Democracy ==
Democratic socialism and socialistic democracy is not the same, you should also represent the economic system which is used in Scandenavia, you know, that region in Europa which wasn't so heavily beaten by the global financial crisis.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 15:05, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:If there is a difference between the two systems, as you indicated, could you add a brief definition here, and then do a more detailed separate article on the subject? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:01, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== So close to communism? ==

I fail to see why this article consistently equates socialism with communism when communism was simply an offshoot of socialist ideals.
Is it really necessary to make them sound as though they are the same? They ''are'' different ideoligies. {{unsined|Guardian}}

:Keep denying they are the same ideology, when in fact they are not opposing. The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics would promote what system?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

::To be fair to the first post I have to admit he is right the Soviet Union was a communist system. Though it was based off socialism. The idea that it ineviatably leads to communism is slightly absurd considering countries like Canada and Portugal have socialist systems in place such as their healthcare and education systems. {{unsigned|Era3344}} --14:05, 10 June 2009

:::You are making a false flag argument, and you know it. The Soviet Union sprang full-born as a Communist nation. All experience has shown, as is the case here in the U.S., and Canada where you purportedly live, once entitlements are foisted on the citizenry, the demand for them never slacks, and deceitful politicians soon realize offering them is key to being re-elected. It is a downward spiral that can lead nowhere other than a Communist or totalitarian state. Because once the pockets of the citizens are emptied, the state must somehow provide more and more, and that can only be sustained for so long, as we saw in the case of the Soviet Union, and more recently in China, which has been forced to allow quasi-capitalism to generate the huge sums of money needed for entitlements. That process with the Soviet Union took over 75 years until it collapsed. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:31, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

::::As offensive as I find your attack on my nationality I'll let it slide. You are once again leaving the socialist theory out of the equation and instead rushing into full blown communism. Your argument is fundamentally wrong on so many levels. In Canada the theory of collectivisation(not the Soviet model but simply a manner of spreading the wealth one of the many ideas in Socialism) in our NDP party is put forward as their election platform. They have never once won an election. Our Conservative party and Liberal party borrows from those ideals however, and they have each managed to win a fairly even number of elections based on some socialist propositions, which I must add are very usefull to my life. Your assumption that this loose set of ideals unfailingly leads to communism is not only factually wrong but a misrepresentation of the facts. {{unsigned|Era3344}}

''Attack on your nationality?'' Really? Where was that? Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:09, 10 June 2009 (EDT)

==Sliding toward Socialism==
As we see America increasingly moving toward secular socialism, i was surprised not to see a section addressing such here, or an internal link to the page that does. I would like to add a word and link to a possible recent development on that front, that of the ability to regulate even gardnens. http://wholefoodusa.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/feds-to-license-home-breadmaking-and-garden-sales/ Also, while it is good to distinguish between the form of what is often termed socialism in the Bible (which, while not being a which static form, was an effect and manifestation of liberated, secure souls surrendered to Christ) versus its secular counterpart (which is driven by insecurity), the cause of the latter kind of socialism might be addressed. Finally, under Leninism, the sentence, "Conservatives have been very hostile", which looks lie an interpolation, ought to be qualified. I might be considered a liberal in Red China.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:33, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
*''...what is often termed socialism in the Bible...
:Got my [[Concordance]] here, can't find the word "socialism" anywhere in Greek or Hebrew. Are you sure you are not quoting some commie rot from somewhere, rahter than the [[Bible]]? TY [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::Note my words, "what is often termed socialism". As the article manifests, socialism is not strictly defined, nor do we need a precise term in the Bible for concepts it describes, from a Theocracy to the Trinity, and the concept of "equal distribution of goods among the people" and related aspects the article notes, is seen in Acts 2:44-47; 4:32-37, though that was critically different from socialism in its classic manifestations. The article (which was not any of my work) also basically notes the reason why what we see in Acts could NOT take place under Communists, nor will it under our present (US) President, or any such. However, while the spirit of the surrender and benevolence seen in the primitive church is to be a constant, that form of it was not, as believers are evidenced to have their own houses, and goods, and to practice capitalism, out of which they voluntarily and sacrificially gave. (1Cor. 11:22; 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 17:5; 21:8; 1Tim. 6:17-19; Acts 18:3)

::The key was that they in giving, "first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God", (2 Cor 8:5) with their submission to leaders not being that of implicit trust in men, but to brethren who manifested they were bound by the Word of God, and required no more of others than what their sacrificial submission to Christ required, in accordance with sound doctrine by the Spirit of Christ. Lenin, etc. do no fit in such holy ranks, and i come too short myself.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 17:48, 4 August 2009 (EDT)
:::What does "equal distribution of goods" have to do with [[mass murder]]? Oh, I see; after the [[national socialists]] exterminated people, they allowed the prisoners who burned the corpses to loot thier luggage and belongings. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:17, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You got it.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:14, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

== Main Image ==

Im just wondering why this picture is on a page about socialism when the caption reads Leninism. If no one minds I would like to remove it in order to find a better image.
::I fixed it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:17, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
Thank you kindly.

Could we perhaps use a different picture? This one seems to have no bearing on the article itself. Perhaps if we used the Red Flag as is common we could have a better base for people to understand the article. If we move the Main image down in the article it would have much more meaning. I'm going to try it out. Tell me what you think. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 22:48, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::good move--looks better there. :) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
::: Thank you :) However I'm having trouble inserting the photo I want for the main image. Its being very uncooperative. I have it saved but it just won't convert to how I want it too. Any suggestions? --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 18:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Socialism

2009-12-09T03:52:14Z

Matthew2208:

'''Socialism''' is often used in 2009 to describe government programs conservatives dislike. However, as a historical term it has a more precise meaning of an economic system with state ownership or control of the all the major means of production and distribution of goods and services<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Meriam-Webster]</ref>. The central goal is to establish a "worker's paradise"-an ideal state with perfect equality.

In practice the socialist government owns the banks, railroads, farmlands, factories, and stores, and is the only employer. (People sometimes are allowed to have small gardens.) The central goal is to destroy the "evils of capitalism" by government ownership of the means of production, usually with one party controlling the government on behalf of the working class.

In practice however the socialist system never manages to establish this "paradise" because management for the benefit of the employees leads to featherbedding and lack of investment or economic growth, at the expense of consumers. Collective farming (operating farms like factories) sharply reduced the food supply. The most thoroughgoing efforts by Communist regimes turned into authoritarian dictatorships. The government controls all investments, production, distribution, income, and prices, as well as all organizations, schools, news media and formerly private societies. Churches and labor unions are suppressed or controlled by the government. Socialism is the antithesis of [[capitalism]], opposes private ownership of capital or land, and rejects the free market in favor of central planning. It also rejects "civil society" and makes sure that all organizations are controlled by the government.

Theoretically socialist regimes can have multiple parties. In practice there is only one political party, and it controls the government. The leaders of the party choose the government officials and set all policies for the nation and for cities and localities. Opposition parties are not allowed access to the media or to meeting halls or to funding, and their leaders are often arrested as "enemies of the people."

As a political ideology based on the redistribution of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the many over the rights of the few, but in practice when socialist economic principles are forced onto a nation by a totalitarian government a new Upper Class appears which is much better off than the Lower Class.

{{cquote|'''<big>Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.</big> - Winston Churchill''' <ref>[http://www.quotesdaddy.com/quote/280995/winston-churchill/socialism-is-a-philosophy-of-failure-the-creed-of Churchill; Quotesdaddy.com]</ref>}}

There are three main kinds of Socialism, but all of them are built on the premise that social control of the means of production ensures that a community's resources are used in a positive and uplifting manner.

==Leninism==
[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The Russian caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!" This is Leninism, a nasty version of socialism]]

First there is Marxian Socialism or '''Leninism''' as revised by Lenin and practiced in the Soviet Union by [[Stalin]] (and his successors) and in China by [[Mao Zedong]] (but not by his successors), as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam in the 21st century. Leninism is totalitarian, with no democracy and all decision made by the leaders of the Communist party. Virtually all property (apart from some personal possessions like clothing) is controlled by the Party, as are all jobs and all economic activity. Conservatives have been very hostile. China after Mao's death remained politically totalitarian under the Communist party, but allows a vibrant capitalism and free enterprise system.

Socialism in Communist countries such as the old [[Soviet Union]], [[China]] in the 1949-1980 period, [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]] and [[Vietnam]] had government ownership practically everything. That led to severe inefficiency and widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an "[[Iron Curtain]]" to keep their citizens from emigrating and an elaborate, brutal secret police to ensure there was no freedom of ideas or action.

==Democratic Socialism==
The second form (sometimes called "Revisionism") prevailed in Western Europe down to the 1970s, and is typified by the British Labour Party. It was democratic and closely linked to labor unions that had real power. The goal was for the government to own ("nationalize") major industries such as coal mining, railways, steel making, shipbuilding, airlines, and banking. Small businesses remained private. The idea was that labor unions controlled the government and therefore unions controlled working conditions and wages for the benefit of workers, regardless of the damage to long-term economic growth.

The Socialists were well organized and after 1918 they bitterly fought the breakaway faction that became the [[Communist]] movement. In recent years major Socialist parties (in Europe and Canada) have largely dropped the long-standing demands for state ownership of the means of production and have mostly accepted capitalism. However they remain tied to labor unions and favor liberal policies regarding high taxes and public spending. Conservatives have been negative toward the economics of the second form of socialism, but they have praised its vigorous anti-Communism. Conservatives complain socialists use government power to redistribute wealth.

In countries such as [[Sweden]], a form of democratic socialism has been much more successful, leading to high social equity and a burgeoning economy, as well as general content. Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success.

==Communal Socialism==
The third form of Socialism has nothing to do with Marx or government ownership, and emphasizes the importance of the community over the individual. Usually it means small communities sharing most of their possessions. The most famous examples are the religious [[Shakers]] of the 19th century (a conservative group), and the new-left communes that briefly existed in the 1960s and 70s.

==Controversy==
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, Marxist socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government sometimes without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]]. Investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulates the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation, regulation and aggressive institutionalized coercion.

However, some socialists reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected. They believe increased socio-economic equality is associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as Britain, socialist movements have been built on Christian, democratic and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people. Though this rosy picture of socialism is appealing to many, it ignores what Hayek called "the road to serfdom." Though in theory socialism is an idealized, egalitarian form of economics, in practice it means rule by labor bosses who minimize individualism and economic growth in the name of equality and benefits for the working class.

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and China under Mao Zedong. Private wealth was seized and the owners executed.
===Welfare state===
As an economic theory, democratic socialism calls for equalization of incomes, through taxation of private wealth coupled with welfare state spending. The [[nationalization]] of major industries is primarily a device to allow the unionized workers to control their own wages and working conditions, cutting out the capitalistic owners.

State [[pension]]s and unemployment insurance were not brought in by Socialists--they were first introduced by arch-conservative Chancellor [[Bismark]] in Germany in the 1870s. In Britain they were introduced about 1910 by [[Winston Churchill]] and [[David Lloyd George]] of the [[Liberal Party]], and in the U.S. were part of Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt's,[[New Deal]] in the 1930s. Welfare state ideas such as [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era. However, the United States has always rejected socialism as an ideological position, with a few exceptions such as the [[TVA]].

===Religion===
Some forms of socialism have often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order. Other Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

====New Testament socialism====
The earliest Christians were decidedly living in a manner consistent with basic aims of socialism, albeit with critical requirements and distinctions from its secularist expressions. Luke 14:33 requires the forsaking of all one has if one will be a disciple of Christ, and Acts 2:44 states that the communal believers "had all things common", while Acts 4:32-5:11 describes community redistribution of property, and details the Divine punishment of a husband and wife for hypocrisy, in keeping proceeds from the sale of a piece of property while opening pretending that they gave it all, as others voluntarily did.<ref>Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, 5:1-11)</ref> However, forsaking all is shown to be that of first surrendering oneself and life to the God of the Bible, with literal giving as a result being as He directs, and voluntary. (2Cor. 8,9) In addition, in the early organic church, the "administrators" were humble servants who were examples of self-sacrifice, and who worked with their own hands as needed, (1Cor. 4:9-16) and were accompanied by manifest Divine attestation, including the pro-active exercise of church discipline being only by supernatural or otherwise spiritual means, not carnal force.<ref>(Acts 2:43; 5:5,9,10; 1Cor. 4:19-21; 2Cor. 13:2,3; 2Thes. 3:14,15; 2Tim. 4:2)</ref> Furthermore, while the early organic community provides a noble model of communal life, and of a "seminary" type experience, it was also soon dispersed by persecution (thus greatly expanding the church: Acts 8:1-5; 11:19), and it is later indicated that believers retained ownership of property after conversion. (Acts 16:14,15,40; 1Cor. 11:22) Rich Christians are evidenced to have been part of the early church, but are commanded not to be lofty in mind, but to be ready and willing to share, out of faith in God. (1Tim. 6:17-19) Moreover, in both Testaments capitalism is clearly supported,<ref>Gary North, ''Capitalism and the Bible''</ref> and indolence is not subsidized, but penalized by poverty, while diligence in work is rewarded by its fruits. (Prov. 6:6-11; 13:4; 20:4; 2Thes. 3:10-12; 1Tim. 5:17-18) Although holy widows over 60 years old who were without familial support were taken in by the church, a man is clearly required to provide for his own family, if able. (1Tim. 5:2ff)

While the success of the early church as an organic community is often invoked is support of modern socialism, and many communes of the 1960s evoked the Bible, one critic of modern-day socialism argues:
<blockquote>Socialism, unfortunately, completely disregards Biblical teaching about the fallen nature of human beings and assumes that human beings will act in a morally upright fashion if their basic needs are met. This is at the heart of why socialistic systems never work: because human nature does not work in this fashion.<ref>[http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/capitalism-and-socialism-in-light-of-the-bible Bob Ellis, ''Capitalism and Socialism in Light of the Bible''] Dakota Voice, June 23rd, 2009</ref></blockquote>

== Britain, the Labor Party and Socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British system of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Attlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. Former owners of nationalized industries were compensated. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain, and it remains so today.

In the 1980s under Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] most of the nationalized industries were returned to the private sector, and public housing has been sold to the residencts. These conservative decisions were endorsed by the "New Labour" of Tony Blair, to the annoyance of elderly radicals who fondly remember the poverty and inefficiences of the old system.

== Criticism of socialism ==

[[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]] were important critics of socialism, particularly regarding what is known as the Socialist Calculation Debate. Hayek and Mises argued that a socialist economy would face information constraints that would prevent even well intentioned planners from efficiently allocating resources. That is, the planners would not know how much a battleship or a hospital cost, and could not efficiently allocate resources among different choices. This criticism should be considered as compatible with, but independent of, criticisms based on [[Public choice theory]] that bring into consideration the incentives of political actors.

Svetlana Kunin, who lived in the Soviet Union until 1980 explains how the system worked:
<blockquote>
Life in the USSR modeled the socialist ideal. God-based religion was suppressed and replaced with cultlike adoration for political figures....Only the ruling class of communist leaders had access to special stores, medicine and accommodations that could compare to those in the West. The rest of the citizenry had to deal with permanent shortages of food and other necessities, and had access to free but inferior, unsanitary and low-tech medical care.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
USSR, 1959: I am a "young pioneer" in school. History classes remind us that there is a higher authority than their parents and teachers: the leaders of the Communist Party.
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Those who left Russia found a different set of values in America: freedom of religion, speech, individual pursuits, the right to private property and free enterprise....These opportunities let the average immigrant live a better life than many elites in the Soviet Communist Party...
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
The slogans of "fairness and equality" sound better than the slogans of capitalism. But unlike at the beginning of the 20th century, when these slogans and ideas were yet to be tested, we have accumulated history and reality.<ref>[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/SpecialReport.aspx?id=512665 ''The Perspective Of A Russian Immigrant''], ''Investors Business Daily,'' 09/10/2009 </ref>
</blockquote>

==Past Socialist Countries==
===Chile===
Marxist socialist leader [[Salvador Allende]] was popularly elected in Chile in 1970 in a minority government run by the Popular Unity Party. Allende's economic policy, known as the Vuskovic Plan, sought to achieve transition to socialism. The Vuskovic Plan involved nationalization of large foreign enterprises, land redistribution to farmers, and redistribution of income. The majority in Parliament never supported it and the plan was never carried out as Allende was overthrown by the military.

==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
===[[Cuba]]===
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights. ([[Raul Castro]] now runs the country, having taken it over from his ailing brother Fidel.)

===North Korea===

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il. Although it is investing heavily in nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, extreme poverty on the verge of starvation is the fate of the people, who are very tightly controlled. The country has little to no electrical power at night outside the capital, which can be verified by looking at nighttime satellite photos. <ref>http://epod.usra.edu/archive/epodviewer.php3?oid=87488</ref>

===Venezuela===

The socialist policies of president-for-life Hugo Chavez have destroyed the economy of that oil-rich nation. In 2009, he seized the Venezuelan operations of U.S. based Cargill in order to tighten his grip on the shrinking food supply in his country. <ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/4938993/Venezuelas-Hugo-Chavez-tightens-state-control-of-food-amid-rocketing-inflation-and-food-shortages.html</ref>

==Different Strands of Socialism==
*[[Communism]]
*[[Social democracy]]
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)
*[[Fascism]]
*[[Welfare state]]

==Bibliography==
* Busky, Donald F. ''Communism in History and Theory: From Utopian Socialism to the Fall of the Soviet Union'' (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Communism-History-Theory-Utopian-Socialism/dp/027597748X/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Dougherty, Jude P. "Socialist Man: A Psychological Profile," ''Modern Age'' Volume 46, Number 1-2; Winter/Spring 2004 [http://www.mmisi.org/ma/46_1-2/dougherty.pdf online edition], a conservative critique
*Laslett, John, ed. ''Failure of a Dream: Essays in the History of American Socialism'' (1984)
* Lindemann, Albert S. ''A History of European Socialism'' (1984)
* Lipset, Seymour Martin, and Gary Marks. ''It Didn't Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States'' (2001), Lipset was a leading conservative scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Didnt-Happen-Here-Socialism-Failed/dp/0393322548/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232396722&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Malia, Martin. ''Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia'' (1995) [http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Tragedy-History-Socialism-Russia/dp/0684823136/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761853&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Muravchik, Joshua. ''Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism'' (2003) by conservative historian [http://www.amazon.com/Heaven-Earth-Rise-Fall-Socialism/dp/1893554783/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Novak, Michael. ''Capitalism and Socialism: A Theological Inquiry '' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Socialism-Theological-Michael-Novak/dp/0844721549/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228761601&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search], bu leading conservative scholar
* Nove, Alec. ''An Economic History of the USSR 1917-1991'' (3rd ed. 1993)
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative
* Suny, Ronald Grigor. ''The Soviet Experiment: Russia, the USSR, and the Successor States.'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24265044# online edition]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]

[[Category:Socialism]]

Talk:Socialism

2009-12-09T03:48:37Z

Matthew2208: /* Main Image */

Talk:Communism

2009-11-27T23:48:07Z

Matthew2208: /* Scripture */ new section

Talk:Communism

2009-11-06T21:25:04Z

Matthew2208: /* Communist purges */ new section

Communism

2009-11-06T21:22:30Z

Matthew2208: /* Atrocities and Repression */

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
'''Communism''' is a materialistic and militantly atheistic ideology created to justify the overthrow of "[[Capitalism]]", replacing [[free market]] economics and [[democracy]] with a "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the [[means of production]] with "[[collective ownership]]" (actually [[nationalization]]).

Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which has been dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory==

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|left|200px|The [[hammer and sickle]] is considered throught much of the world to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the public owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages.{{fact}} In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.{{fact}}

Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]).{{fact}}

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

[[Karl Marx]] established atheism as a key part of communism. He famously said, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>

== Atrocities and Repression ==
[[File:Montana de cadaveres en un gulag sovietico.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Victims of communist purges in a Soviet gulag.<ref>[http://www.cubaencuentro.com/es/cultura/articulos/la-condena-del-silencio-y-el-olvido-iii-38610 La condena del silencio y el olvido (III)]
La reacción visceral que inspiran los campos de concentración nazis no es unánime cuando se trata de enjuiciar y condenar el horror totalitario del gulag. Carlos Espinosa Domínguez, cubaencuentro.com, 09/07/2007.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref>
</blockquote>

In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for thte downfall of the Soviet Union as wello as for the whole Soviet block.It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment.The deployment cause great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Eastern Europe]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Talk:Nidal Malik Hasan

2009-11-06T21:06:32Z

Matthew2208: Created page with 'As general as this sounds I just want say that since this is an ongoing investigation I would give it a few days before mking anymore edits to this article as their i much inform...'

As general as this sounds I just want say that since this is an ongoing investigation I would give it a few days before mking anymore edits to this article as their i much information to be uncovered and that by adding speculation it would simply muddy the water.
--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:06, 6 November 2009 (EST)