Difference between revisions of "Talk:Communism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property?)
(Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property?: response)
Line 427: Line 427:
 
::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]]
 
::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]]
 
:::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 spirutal 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)

Revision as of 16:07, 11 October 2007

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:

  1. The Iron Curtain was to keep people in (see also Berlin Wall).
  2. 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. --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. 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. --Hojimachongtalk 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. --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 -- Rob PommerTALK 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --Ed Poor 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. 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' 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 here. --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. 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. 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. --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. 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.--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? Marl Karx 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a democidal subject. 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? Marl Karx 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. 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 Gulags can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? 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. 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. 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):

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.

--Hojimachongtalk 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?Богдан 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".--Hojimachongtalk 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.Богдан 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.Богдан 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. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put inБогдан Talk 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 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. 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. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 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. 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 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. 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? 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? --Sysop-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. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 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. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 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. --Sysop-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! --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. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 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. --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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ondskan (talk)

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. 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 "defectors" 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. --Ed Poor Talk 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RickyTemple (talk)

Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! 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. --Sysop-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. Shola
Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. 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. Shola
Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. RobS 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
  • 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. RobS 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThePantsMobile (talk)

Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. 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. 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? 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. --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? ΨtrykeЯ 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. 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickalexwb (talk)

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!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobS (talk)
Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--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? 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.--Iduan 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
bla bla bla bla Rob Smith 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

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." --Iduan 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? 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.--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). 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--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? 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)--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. --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.--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. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 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.--Iduan 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

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.

This block of text confuses two different meanings of communism:
  1. The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) socialism "withered away"; and,
  2. The actual system of totalitarian government which overthrows Capitalism and institutes Socialism by force. --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.--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. 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.--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.--Iduan 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

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.

Vinceipierce said,
Evil people kill people

Now we're getting closer to the point. 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.--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. 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.--Iduan 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

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

I unprotected Nazism, why don't you go fix it. 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. 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. 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.--Iduan 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

It would be good somewhere in the Guns 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. --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?--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. 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. 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).--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. --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. 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.

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? --Goldstein 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--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? 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.--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.--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. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 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." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Illuminated (talk)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Gmoros (talk)

Have at it (it's unlocked). 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. 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. 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.--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. 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".--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.

On What the Communist Party Is 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. --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. 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.--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. --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? --Rutm 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? 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.[1][2][3][4] 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. Conservative 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "democide", is the expert we should consult. [5] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [6]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide. Notice, for example this citation, [7] 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. 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).[8] 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. 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. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 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.--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 :
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 deceive [9]
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.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. Rob Smith 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

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

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. Pachyderm 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. 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). 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. 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 beings in recent memory. 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....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? 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 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 spirutal 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. Rob Smith 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)