Well, I've taken up the herculean task of cleaning up the article, giving it a better structure and making it NPOV. I have to say I'm pretty proud of my work. :) Go and have a look. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Pretty good, but we have about 12 hours before a series of reverts and crys of "censorship of the worst kind" from you know who... I never realistically imagined it becoming so passable. Still, it could correct more flaws in Ultramarine's writing, such as more direct citations of authors such as Conquest, rather than nebulous references to "critics of communism." Vague passages lacking context like the following are still troubling: "Extensive historical research has documented large scale human rights violations that occurred in Communist states." Of course, one could just as easly write it following in (say) capitalism: "Extensive historical research has documented large scale human rights violations that occurred in capitalist societies." Instead, such a passage should cite the conclusions of specific authors, and how they pin the blame on communism. 172 | Talk16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I did my best to leave his anti-communist arguments virtually untouched, so as to prove that I am editing in good faith and want to reach a good quality, readable and NPOV article. Most of my heavy editing was done on the pro-communist arguments, which had been grossly misrepresented and dismissed. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu16:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
That's true. His writing can remain largely intact, but we can fill in the attributions within the text later on. 172 | Talk16:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I've taken another look over it and corrected one obviously false statement. Human rights violations haven't occured in ALL Communist states ALL the time. But other than that, I've left the human rights objections unchanged and unattributed. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu17:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
At least not on the scale it implied; if one looked broadly enough, one could find human rights problems in any country at any time, including the U.S., which boasts the world's highest per capita prison population... Later on I'll take another look at the paragraph and turn in more into a summary of Conquest, Pipes, Rummel, et al. 172 | Talk17:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine, the issue is not the two-version template but your reversion of Mihnea's changes, which left the article much more readable, NPOV, and encyclopedic. 172 | Talk06:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
You have violated Wikipedia policy both by deleting the template and reverting which the template states should not be done without consensus on the talk page. Ultramarine06:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
If you explain why you reverted her hard work on this page, then you one would have to revert back to an old version to begin with. 172 | Talk06:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I have incorporated many of the recent changes. In addition, I have added numerous references in the text and much new information, including much well-referenced critique now deleted. Ultramarine06:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
In order to resolve the dispute, each of us will have to explain his edits and his objections to the other person's version. In meaningful detail. Generalities like "I have added many useful things" are quite worthless. In this spirit, I will begin:
1. My edits were motivated by three reasons:
(a) Structure - I found the structure of your article to be lacking in many respects.
(b) Accuracy - You repeatedly misrepresented the communist position, for example by claiming that "some" communists believe the term "communist state" to be an oxymoron (when in fact all of them do), or by refusing to acknowledge that there are, in fact, communist objections to the "communist states" as well.
(c) NPOV - Some parts of your article - for example the ones about "Lenin's famine" or "useful idiots" were pure, unredeemable POV.
2. With that in mind, my edits can be classified as follows:
(a) Corrections of structure - "Were the Communist states communist?" was replaced by "Communist critique of Communist states", since that is what it refers to. Marx's predictions, which are part of theory (not practice), and which were done using Historical Materialism, were moved to the section on Historical Materialism. The accusation of pseudoscience, which is also targeted at Historical Materialism (since that is the only part of Marxism that claims the status of science) was also moved to the appropriate section.
(b) Corrections of accuracy - The introduction was expanded to mention that the two kinds of criticisms (against communist states and against theory) are distinct. A header was added in order to point the reader to Criticisms of socialism and explain the purpose of this article. The fact that "communist state" is an oxymoron was mentioned, and a link was provided to the appropriate discussion within the communist state article. The sections on Historical Materialism and the LTV were improved, since you obviously either do not know what communists believe or you are trying to misrepresent those beliefs on purpose.
(c) Corrections of POV - The section on "Lenin's Famine" was not only hopelessly POV (taking the staunch anti-communist side in a controversial issue), but also unjustified. The rest of the article makes general observations, without going into specifics. If you want to go into specifics, shouldn't you start with more important events, like the Great Purge, the Great Leap Forward, etc.? The section on "useful idiots" doesn't even criticize communism at all, it just says that a number of Western right-wingers think that communists are idiots. That would be better suited for an article on pejorative political terms. Finally, a number of your section headings were POV, such as "real-world failures". Failures according to whom? Supporters of communist states certainly don't think they were failures - on the contrary!
And one final note regarding POV: You have the bad habit of sandwiching the opposing POV between two statements that support your POV. In other words, you follow this model:
You seem to think things that you dislike are POV and should be removed. My facts are well-referenced and if you want to remove them, show that the references are incorrect. Regarding predictions, they are tested in the real-world. A Google search shows numerous claims of "Marxist science" which thus can be criticized [8]. I incorporated a number of your changes that were improvements. Critique of Lenin is important, since many think that he was innocent and all evil started with Stalin.
Here are some of the things deleted by 172 when he reverted to your version.
During Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry.
Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame and actually had a food surplus. The Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. The famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the White territories, the Reds seized the Whites' grain reserves, although they primarily sent them to cities with less hunger but more political clout. Some relief organizations suspended help when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are 3-10 million. Lenin was also responsible for starting the slave labor camp system and for 100000-500000 summary executions of "class enemies" Sources and estimates of the number killed: [1][2]
Cuba is often cited as a successful example of by communists. However, Cuba was one of most developed nations in Latin America before Castro. Other Latin American nations have seen greater increases in literacy than Cuba. Calories per person has declined in Cuba while it has increased in most other Latin American nations. Cubans eat less cereals and meat than before Castro [9].
After 1965, life expectancy began to decline in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe while it continued to increase in Western Europe. This decline accelerated after the change to market economy in the states of the former Soviet Union but has now started to increase in the Baltic states. In Eastern Europe, life expectancy has increased significantly after the fall of Communism. The continued poor situation in Russia and Ukraine has been strongly linked to alcoholism. [10][11]
(On that social sciences are not falsifiable.)
One response is that many social sciences like psychology, economics, and political science are increasingly being tested, for example by statistical methods.
Lenin did state the following:
"The so-called cultural element of Western Europe and America are incapable of comprehending the present state of affairs and the actual balance of forces; these elements must be regarded as deaf-mutes and treated accordingly....
"A revolution never develops along a direct line, by continuous expansion, but from a chain of outbursts and withdrawals, attacks and lulls, during which the revolutionary forces gain strength in preparation for their final victory....
"We must:
"(a) In order to placate the deaf-mutes, proclaim the fictional separation of our government ... from the Comintern, declaring this agency to be an independent political group. The deaf- mutes will believe it.
"(b) Express a desire for the immediate resumption of diplomatic relations with capitalist countries on the basis of complete non-interference in their internal affairs. Again, the deaf- mutes will believe it. They will even be delighted and fling wide-open their doors through which the emissaries of the Comintern and Party Intelligence agencies will quickly infiltrate into these countries disguised as our diplomatic, cultural, and trade representatives.
"Capitalists the world over and their governments will, in their desire to win Soviet market, shut their eyes to the above- mentioned activities and thus be turned into blind deaf-mutes. They will furnish credits, which will serve as a means of supporting the Communist parties in their countries, and, by supplying us, will rebuild our war industry, which is essential for our future attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will be laboring to prepare their own suicide."(Stalin : The First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives, 1997, Edvard Radzinsky)(The Lufkin News, King Featurers Syndicate, Inc., 31 July 1962, p. 4, as quoted by the Freeman Report, 30 Sept. 1973, p. 8). [12].
I am perfectly aware of the information that was removed. I have explained all my deletions and other edits in detail. Now it is time for you to explain yours. Please reply to all the points I have made above; if you do not, I will have no choice but to continue reverting. A Google search does indeed show many claims of "Marxist science" - from anti-communists. In this, as in so many cases, you insist on attacking a straw man. Marxists do of course claim that historical materialism is scientific, but not that all Marxism is a science. As for your Lenin quote, it does not appear in any of Lenin's works. It comes from a dubious source and you refuse to give any details surrounding it - such as the name of the secret document in which the quote is supposed to appear, the date of its publication, the subject of the secret document, or the method by which Edvard Radzinsky claims to have obtained it. And, as I have pointed out, your entire section on "useful idiots" is dedicated to citing Western authors who say that communists are idiots. This does not belong in criticisms of communism, but in an article on pejorative political terms. Finally, the reason you give for your bashing of Lenin clearly demonstrates that you fail to understand the concept of NPOV. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "correct" the "wrong views" that certain readers may hold. Our purpose is to inform the readers of all points of view, not preach one of them.
Your paragraph on social sciences displays a clear lack of understanding of the scientific method. Look into it.
Your two paragraphs on Cuba and Eastern Europe, however, are valid and I will attempt to integrate them in my version of the article. But not before we agree on a general structure, which is the first order of business. Leaving aside the content, do you have any objections to the structure of my version of the article? Yes or no?
And again, I am stressing the fact that I ask you to please reply to all my points above, which were specifically designed to initiate a dialogue. You would be well advised to make a similar list of the nature of your edits and the reasons behind them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu18:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I have answered your points. It is simply false to say that only anti-communists use "Marxist science", as anyone can see from the Google results. Again, show that the references are wrong, do not delete just because you dislike well referenced historical facts. Ultramarine05:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You've answered nothing - not even my simple yes or no question regarding the structure of the article! Long before we get to your historical references, there are many other changes that I made and that you keep removing for no reason. Specifically (and here I quote myself):
"(a) Corrections of structure - "Were the Communist states communist?" was replaced by "Communist critique of Communist states", since that is what it refers to. Marx's predictions, which are part of theory (not practice), and which were done using Historical Materialism, were moved to the section on Historical Materialism. The accusation of pseudoscience, which is also targeted at Historical Materialism (since that is the only part of Marxism that claims the status of science) was also moved to the appropriate section.
(b) Corrections of accuracy - The introduction was expanded to mention that the two kinds of criticisms (against communist states and against theory) are distinct. A header was added in order to point the reader to Criticisms of socialism and explain the purpose of this article. The fact that "communist state" is an oxymoron was mentioned, and a link was provided to the appropriate discussion within the communist state article. The sections on Historical Materialism and the LTV were improved, since you obviously either do not know what communists believe or you are trying to misrepresent those beliefs on purpose.
(c) Corrections of POV - [...] The section on "useful idiots" doesn't even criticize communism at all, it just says that a number of Western right-wingers think that communists are idiots. That would be better suited for an article on pejorative political terms. Finally, a number of your section headings were POV, such as "real-world failures". Failures according to whom? Supporters of communist states certainly don't think they were failures - on the contrary!
And one final note regarding POV: You have the bad habit of sandwiching the opposing POV between two statements that support your POV. In other words, you follow this model:
# Anti-communists say X.
# Communists say Y.
# But anti-communists reply with Z.
This is highly inappropriate, not to mention making it difficult for our readers to follow the article."
As you can plainly see, none of the above has anything to do with your historical references. As for "Marxist science", please check the Encyclopedia of Marxism. I see no mention of "Marxist science", not any mention in the Marxism [13] entry that Marxism as a whole is a science. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu07:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, anyone can see from Google that many Marxists use the term "Marxist science". Again, I incorporated the changes to LTV, as you could have seen if you read my text. A critique against Marxist theory should certainly include how it is used in academia. Again, predictions are tested in the real world and thus fall under the real-world section. You are arguing that the examples given were not failures? Ultramarine07:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I could easily argue that the examples given were not failures. Being Romanian, I can argue from personal experience that capitalism has been much more of a failure than "communism". But my opinion is irrelevant, of course - just like yours. If only you understood that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The point is that the term "failure" is inherently subjective, and thus POV. Regarding Marxist science, it is true that Marxists believe part of Marxism to be a science, but not all of it. I keep trying to explain that. Pejorative terms like "useful idiot" do not represent a critique. Certainly not a critique of communism. Saying "communism is bad because some communists are idiots" is a logical fallacy (ad hominem), even if its two assertions (that communism is bad and that some communists are idiots) are true when taken separately. Plus, your Lenin quote (which is of dubious origin) says that capitalists, not communists, are "idiots". Finally, as a matter of structure, notice that my version of the article contains two main sections entitled "20th century Communist states" and "Marxism and communist theory", respectively. Marx's predictions are certainly not part of the discussion regarding 20th century Communist states. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu08:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, all I did was remove the paragraphs you quoted from the article, since, as I explained, "I am perfectly aware of the information that was removed [from the article]". I didn't know you considered it so important to have them listed here. I apologise. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu18:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Violation of Wikipedia policy
Mihnea Tudoreanu, you have violated Wikipedia policy by reverting my version which was the first to use the "Two-version" tag. It states that there should be a consensus on the talk page first. You have also violated policy by removing the template. Ultramarine07:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
And you have violated wikipedia policy by refusing to even pretend to discuss our dispute on the Talk page. My reverting to an earlier version than my latest one was an obvious mistake (notice I had just added the "Two-version" tag right before your most recent reverts). As you can see, when I make a mistake, I fix it in 10 minutes - which is far more than can be said for you. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu07:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have shown numerous examples of well-referenced historical facts that you have deleted and answered your other claims. Ultramarine07:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
First you entirely dismissed, then you barely acknowledged my arguments in a 3-line paragraph. As for your "numerous examples", last time I checked there were only two short paragraphs of them, and I had agreed to start discussing and including them as soon as we reached consensus on the more general issues with the article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:02, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
This is incorrect since my arguments are spread over several paragraphs in different edits. However, I have now incorporated several of your points in my version, see below. Hopefully we can now together in similar good faith include the well-referenced historical facts that are in my version but not in yours. Ultramarine13:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have already incorporated many of your points in my previous versions. I have now further incorporated some other points in a new version [15]. Thus, I hope we can now together incorporate the many well-established historical facts that are in my version but not in yours. Ultramarine10:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have added one argument against my own position. Hopefully this will another sign of good faith.
"Some adherents to the Marxian doctrine of Historical Materialism argue that true communism can only develop as a response to the contradictions of bourgeois capitalism; therefore, the failure of those experiments in communism to date can be attributed to the fact they did not emerge in this manner. In short, some Marxists argue that, in order for a successful socialist revolution to occur, capitalism must first dominate the globe. The Soviet Union is a case in point - Tsarist Russia was quasi-feudal, not capitalist, and was overthrown by a small cadre rather than by a mass revolution. So it is argued by some Marxists that the failure of Soviet socialism to sustain itself is actually an affirmation of Historical Materialism." [16]Ultramarine13:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. This is encouraging news, and an indication that we may at last be making some progress. Your sign of good faith is very well received, and, as I have stated before, I am more than willing to incorporate the historical facts that are present in your version and not mine. As a source of references for various historical events, I would strongly suggest relying on the Historical Atlas of the 20th century, because it (a) compiles information from many different sources, and (b) it is non-ideological (unlike, say, the Museum of Communism, which is openly libertarian and has an axe to grind). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
On another note, once we agree on which version to start working with (see below), I propose the following method of editing: We begin with the least controversial issues and work our way up to the most controversial. Also, it is useful to discuss sections or even paragraphs one at a time, so as to avoid "blind reverts" (one attempts to edit or revert something, but, since he's not looking at the rest of the article, ends up reverting an innocent paragraph at the same time). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Two Versions: a method of merger
There are two versions of this page: one I will call U; the other M.
I propose the following plan:
the editors on this page see if there is a consensus for one of the alternatives; choose M as a working basis or choose U as a working basis. If there is, the dissentients be asked to state what they would merge into the consensus version, and the consensus be as generous as possible in admitting these things. I would be happy, for example, if M is the consensus, to admit the rather elegant good-faith paragraph above. On the other hand, if there is a consensus against any item, it should be dropped. At that point the templates may be able to go too.
Opinions in the following straw-poll should be brief and civil. I have tried to set an example. Septentrionalis
Straw Poll
Chooose M as a working basis
Because it contains so much neutral stuff (like the last sentence of M's intro, or the chronology of Socialist Realism), that I would be adding back in anyway. Septentrionalis23:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Because M was actually based on U. After all, M was an attempt to radically improve U and make it NPOV. I do not think we should roll back the clock. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Once we agree on the version to use as our working basis, we will discuss here the first section of the article. Watch this space. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The facts
I think we should discuss the actual facts instead of declaring one version to be a "working basis". What are the objections to the referenced data presented in my version? I will remove the templates claiming factual inaccuracy and original research unless specific counter-examples are given. Ultramarine12:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I endorsed M largely because it contains almost all of U. What else would you like to include? Please list here.
We're not so much opposed to what you present as we are opposed to how you present it, Ultramarine. Please list here the facts you want to add to my version (a bulleted list would suffice) and I will go and add them. If one fact is controversial, we can discuss it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
List of proposed changes
We can begin with this, lets take them one at a time. State if you agree or explain why it it inaccurate.
Pollution
Also pointed out is the environmental disasters. One is the gradual disappearance of the Aral Sea and the Caspian Sea because of the diversion of the rivers that fed them. Another the pollution of the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, and the unique freshwater environment of Lake Baikal. Many of the rivers were polluted; several were virtually ecologically dead. In 1988 only 20% of the sewage was treated properly. Established health standards for air pollution was exceeded by ten times or more in 103 cities in the Soviet Union in 1988. The air pollution problem was even more severe in Eastern Europe. It caused lung cancer, forest die-back, and damage to buildings and cultural heritages. According to official sources, 58 percent of total agricultural land of the former Soviet Union was affected by salinization, erosion, acidity, or waterlogging. Nuclear waste was dumped in the Sea of Japan, the Arctic Ocean, and in locations in the Far East. It was revealed in 1992 that in the city of Moscow there were 636 radioactive toxic waste sites and 1,500 in St. Petersburg. [17][18]. Ultramarine15:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Take a look here: [19]. I've added your paragraph in a slightly modified and NPOV-ed form. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Basically, I have removed the "many rivers were polluted" part, since that is generic and could be true of any industrialized country, and added a possible communist counter-argument. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu15:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You have removed "One is the gradual disappearance of the Aral Sea and the Caspian Sea because of the diversion of the rivers that fed them." and "Many of the rivers were polluted; several were virtually ecologically dead" You claim that the pollution continued similarly after the fall of communism. Give source. You also claim that the rivers argument is invalid because it could also be true in the West. Please do not guess; give source stating that this is true. Ultramarine15:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Look again; the gradual dissapearence of the Aral Sea was already mentioned. Regarding the continued pollution, I don't have to give a source - I live in a former communist country. I will look for sources if you insist (since it should be easy to find some), but I'd appreciate it if you did not turn this article into a swiss cheese of external links. Finally, are you implying that river pollution doesn't happen in the West?
Caspian sea was excluded. You do have to give a source, your particular experience says nothing about the whole of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Some pollution has happened in the West but not so that the rivers are dead. Ultramarine15:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
And capitalist Romania's record in river pollution is worse than dismal. Just 5 years ago, a massive cyanide spill caused by a private mining company in Romania ended up killing all life in the Tisza river and massively polluting the Danube: [22] -- Mihnea Tudoreanu16:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Finally, I was not aware that the Caspian sea was in any danger of "dissapearing" - it's still the world's largest inland body of water, is it not? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu16:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
One of your sources is ten years old and says nothing about the situation today, the others mention some specific problems and not the general situation. However, we can certainly add that problems has continued in some countries, but has improved greatly in some, like Poland. [23] Regarding the Caspian Sea, it is 15 years since the fall of Communism, is it not? Ultramarine16:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Let us complete the merger befor arguing over points of detail. That's what {{dubious}} tags: [which say [dubious – discuss]] are for. The present text says: "The most cited example is the disappearance of the Aral Sea in today's Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which is believed to have been caused by the diversion of the waters of its two affluent rivers for cotton production." I am going to add "The Caspian sea has also been diminishing." If either of you disagrees with that sentence, put on a dubious tag and we can look up area statistics later. Septentrionalis17:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
As for "Many of the rivers were polluted; several were virtually ecologically dead":the first clause is obvious from what has been said, the second a classic instance of weasel wording. (And has Ultramarine considered Lake Erie?} If it is included, I will not revert it, but I will dispute it. In any case, we cannot include all the enviromental problems of the Soviet Union; that's another article. Septentrionalis17:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I will give some specific instances in the next version. And paragraph about some the many and severe environmental problems i hardly to much. Ultramarine19:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Please continue previous good factual discussion. There is certainly no agreement on any non-existing Wikipedia policy regarding "working basis". Ultramarine17:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia rule about 2/3 majority in cases like this, there should be consensus. If you try to do any "merger", I will ask for protection of this page, using my version. Ultramarine19:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You have a real talent for grabbing defeat out of the jaws of victory. We have all agreed that 90% of your paragraph on pollution, which used to be consistently reverted, should stay permanently in the article. To get the same result on other paragraphs, you only need to ask. I repeat, what else would you like to have included? Septentrionalis
As for "winning" an edit war by requesting tactical page protection: I suggest you readWikipedia:This page is protected first. 19:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to add that lack of consensus is not grounds for pushing your minority view on everyone else. If we fail to resolve any dispute on one of these paragraphs, we will put up a public poll - and I get the nagging feeling that the result will be overwhelmingly against you. Notice, for example, that there is not a single person who supports you on the RfC. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Your version still does not include that Poland has seen an improvement in the environmental situation after the fall of Communism. Please correct. Ultramarine12:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Your version is POV since it does not mention the improvements in many Eastern Europe nations. Nor does it mention the improvements in the some of the FSU states, like the Baltic states [25]. Please correct. Ultramarine19:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Using the same logic, statements about pollution in the states of the FSU should be eliminated. I think not, both should be presented. Ultramarine19:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I have altered Mihnea's most to many. I believe this to be the case. I believe it will be the one-sentence summary of the article on Pollution in Eastern Europe; and that no more of that article belongs here. Both sides of that debate should be presented in the article on that subject. Here it is a digression on a borderline sentence. Septentrionalis22:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You version still does not mention the environmental improvement in many Eastern European nations and the Baltic states. Please correct that this violation of NPOV. Ultramarine00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Nor does it mention, for example, that (as one of the articles Ultramarine provides asserts) that the Polish housing market is still working badly, so this is an improvement for those well-connected enough to have houses in the cities, just as under Communism. These things are outside the scope of this article; see Wikipedia:Stay on topic. But I'm willing to make a deal. If Ultramarine can find someone who says: "Communism is dreadful because air pollution in Cracow has improved since 1994", I'll put something in. Septentrionalis14:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, by the same logic the article should not mention any pollution problems after the fall of communism. You violates NPOV by only mentioning remaining problems without mentioning the many improvements. Correct. Ultramarine19:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
That sentence is on-topic if the position "The Communists weren't so bad; the air in Bucharest is worse than ever" is actually held. I find it difficult to believe it is not; I will leave it to Mihnea to come up with citations. Septentrionalis15:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I am glad you again acknowledge the dispute and again are willing to discuss the facts. Please restore the two-version template. Ultramarine15:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The NPOV dispute tag remains and I will defend its presence. The 2V tag was taken off per consensus that it was a source of edit war, not a mechanism for truce in this instance. Please do not put it back in opposition to the consensus. If there is a significant factual dispute remaining on this section, I don't see it, so please indicate it below. I remind you again that you can edit this version as any other Wikipedian can. Robert A West16:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Your claim of consensus if false, as discussed for example in a current Rfa. There are factual inaccuraces in your version in at least East Germany, Technology, and David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Ultramarine16:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Life expectancy
Here is another paragraph:
After 1965, life expectancy began to plateau or even decreased, especially for males, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe while it continued to increase in Western Europe. This very large divergence between two parts of Europe went on during three decades leading to a profound gap in the mid 90s. The decline in life expectancy accelerated after the change to market economy in the states of the former Soviet Union but has now started to increase in the Baltic states. In Eastern Europe, life expectancy has increased significantly after the fall of Communism. The continued poor situation in Russia and Ukraine has been strongly linked to alcoholism. [26][27]Ultramarine19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Such a paragraph should be included.
The phrase started to increase in the Baltic states. exaggerates your source, who, quite plausibly, thinks the recent variation hopeful, but not yet signficant. The last sentence is unsupported by these sources, which speak of heart disease and violence as primary causes. I have seen newspaper articles speculating this, but they are not statisticians.
Mihnea will be perfectly justified in commenting that this proves as much about post-Soviet capitalism in the Independent States as anything else. Septentrionalis19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
This is supported "On an individual level, alcohol consumption is strongly implicated in being at least partially responsible for many of these trends." Ultramarine20:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
In other words "maybe, we think, perhaps alcohol consumption could be a factor". That's idle speculation. As you so often insist, we should only mention the facts. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The claim that "In Eastern Europe, life expectancy has increased significantly after the fall of Communism." is patently false. I present the case of Romania, and cite the CIA World Factbook as a reference:
1990
Life expectancy at birth: 69 years male, 75 years female [28]
Statistics on life expectancy are available for all East European countries; I will go see what their experience has been. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu23:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Look at this [30]. However, we can certainly change to in "In many Eastern Europe nations, life expectancy has increased significantly after the fall of Communism." Ultramarine09:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's my proposed paragraph:
Demographic studies [31] have concluded that, after 1965, life expectancy stayed constant, or even declined, especially for males, in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe while it continued to increase in Western Europe. This divergence between two parts of Europe went on during three decades leading to a profound gap in the mid 90s. The decline in life expectancy accelerated after the change to market economy in 12 of the 15 former Soviet republics, including Russia. Only in the three Baltic republics it may have started to increase. In Eastern Europe, after 1990, the decline continued most notably in Romania, but life expectancy eventually began to increase in many of the other countries in the region. All these developments are significant for the analysis of post-Soviet capitalism, especially the economy of Russia, as well as the policies of the Communist states.
What is your source for "12 of the 15"? The study only looks at Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine of the FSU states. 2/5. Ultramarine14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Reading the study, I see Mihnea has been too generous. Life expectancy was constant in Western Europe until 1970, and continued to increase for females even in Eastern Europe, even if more slowly, after 1970. Septentrionalis17:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Your version violates NPOV since it does not mention the improvements in many Eastern European nations. Please correct. Ultramarine19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Some communist supporters argue that Lenin was innocent of the large scale human right violations associated with Stalin. However, during Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry.
Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. The White forces shared little of the blame and actually had a food surplus. The Civil War was essentially over by the beginning of 1920, but Lenin continued his harsh exploitation of the peasantry for yet another year. The famine of 1921 was thus much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the White territories, the Reds seized the Whites' grain reserves, although they primarily sent them to cities with less hunger but more political clout. Some relief organizations suspended help when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are 3-10 million. Lenin was also responsible for starting the slave labor camp system and for 100000-500000 summary executions of "class enemies" Estimates of the number killed: [3] Sources: See reference list below
We can discuss the picture, although for example the Holocaust has similar pictures. Regarding the prose, you have to give specific criticisms. Ultramarine20:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Death in an organized camp is not the same as death by starvation. If someone dies in a concentration camp set up by some regime, there is no doubt that his/her death is the regime's fault. If, on the other hand, someone dies during a civil war as the result of a controversial natural catastrophe whose death toll may or may not have been augumented by the policies of the regime... You see the point. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu21:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Since Mihnea is willing to discuss details, I will do so. However, since we already have the picture up above, I ask consent to delete it here; this post will be more readable. Septentrionalis
The prose is advocacy: high-flown, vague, rhetorical, and urging the evils of Communism. This is violation of a core Wikipedia policy: Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate and the rest of the policy page. Consider, say, a comparable bar about Magadan. It might be perfectly accurate, I might personally absolutely agree with it and be persuaded by it; I would still believe it utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia.
About the "Famine of 1921", I have doubts also.
I have no objections to a mention of famine in 1921, or properly sourced, of Lenin's reponsibility for it.
Famines are not uncommon the year after wars. IIRC 1816 had a famine and 1946 escaped one only through intensive American shipments. The previous year's harvest will have been bad; so there will be no reserve. The economy will still be disrupted, and the men and ploughshare required for sowing will be out of place.
The logic seems to be:
The Red Army had no food
The White armies had plenty of food.
Therefore the Red Army oppressed the peasants.
This effort at proof is itself persuasion, and improper; but it is also poor reasoning: Where did the White armies get their food? By oppressing the peasants, of course.
What are the 100,000-500,000 at the end? (Large error bar, that.) Total executions 1918-1924? Total executions, 1921? Personally ordered by Lenin, either period? This vagueness is another reason why polemic is contrary to policy.
Some communist supporters argue that Lenin was innocent of the large scale human right violations associated with Stalin. However, during Russian Civil War, Lenin started "requisitioning" supplies from the peasantry for little or nothing in exchange. This led peasants to drastically reduce their crop production. In retaliation, Lenin ordered the seizure of the food peasants had grown for their own subsistence and their seed grain. The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry.
Official Soviet reports admitted that fully 30 million Soviet citizens were in danger of death by starvation. At the same time, the areas under White control had built up a food surplus. The famine of 1921 was much less severe in 1920, because after the reconquest of the White territories, the Reds seized the Whites' grain reserves, although they primarily sent them to cities with less hunger but more political clout. Some relief organizations suspended help when it was revealed that the Soviet Union preferred to sell food abroad in order to get hard currency rather than feed its starving people. Estimates on the deaths from this famine are 3-10 million. Lenin started the slave labor camp system and 100000-500000 summary executions of "class enemies" occured during his regime [4][5]. Estimates of the number killed: [6]. See also references below.
Pure POV and unacceptable. You do not state the facts, you assign blame. Some of your statements are clearly false or at least badly written, for example talking about the Soviet Union in 1921 (that's 3 years before the Soviet Union was actually formed), while others are absurd, for example "The Cheka and the army began by shooting hostages, and ended by waging a second full-scale civil war against the peasantry". I'm curious, how exactly was the Red Army able to win a war against the White movement AND the British and French intervention forces AND its own peasantry? Were they supermen? The picture is POV and unacceptable for reasons outlined above, and I call into question your reasons for concentrating on this particular controversial famine rather than, say, the much better documented one of 1929-1931. I have accepted to include many of your paragraphs into my version. This one, however, will have to go. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Remains advocacy. unacceptable in this form. Please read WP:NPOV.
Wikipedia is not a letters-to-the-editor column; and if something would work well there, it is inappropriate to WP. A polemic can be made up of facts and still be a polemic. I will add a sentence about War communism, and about Conquest's estimates for Lenin (it is a criticism, after all). Septentrionalis
The implication of Ultramarine's rant is that Lenin spent 1921 ordering his Bolsheviks to oppress the peasantry, without even the excuse of a war. That single sentence would be worth including, if only it were true. But the New economic policy was decreed March 21, 1921.
I believe my remarks about famine above are true, but are a vera causa for 1922. The famine of 1921 was largely due to shortage in the harvest of fall 1920, which was only to be expected; it was a year of war, and Russian agriculture had been in disarray since 1915. If the famine was coming anyway, it was not Lenin's fault. He made different, and in my opinion, more people die, but that is not responsibility for the famine. Septentrionalis16:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Since you absolutely refuse to read the more important references by scholars, maybe some of these online links will convince you.
Your third reference [38] does convince me of two things: the text you propose to include is a copyright violation; and the attribution to Robert Conquest may well be wrong. (I am, btw, perfectly willing to assert Lenin's count as a fact, provided Mihnea agrees that hundreds of thousands of deaths are a consensus figure.) Septentrionalis23:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You are correct that there was a mistake, it was not Conquest's book I referred to but [39]. I will correct that. Regarding copyright, the text is now quite different than the source, contains some other content, like on relief organizations, and what resemblance there may be falls under fair use. Note that the picture is in the public domain. Ultramarine01:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I am unclear about what facts are being claimed here. Is this text intended to suggest that Lenin sold grain abroad in 1921? or is it not? Septentrionalis15:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)=
From the link "Even when finally requesting famine aid, the Bolsheviks relied on the nominally private All-Russian Public Committee to Aid the Hungry (Pomgol). Pomgol requested the assistance of the American Relief Association founded by Herbert Hoover, then-U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The ARA responded by spending over $61.6 million to relieve the Russian famine. The ARA fed up to 11 million people a day at the height of relief efforts. The ARA suspended relief operations in June 1923 when it was revealed the Soviet Union was offering foodstuffs for sale abroad -- specifically millions of tons of cereals which it preferred to sell for hard currency rather than feed its starving people. " Pipes, Richard. Russia under the Bolshevik regime. New York: Vintage Books, 1994, pp.415-9. So obviosuly not intended. Ultramarine13:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I will add the year but this does not change the point of the argument. What revisions are you claiming to be necessary? Ultramarine13:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Please list them here, or insert them yourself. Some of them really don't belong in the article. For example, I intentionally omitted the second reference under environment, above, as redundant; and the amazon link to Robert Conquest is unencyclopedic. See Wikipedia:ISBN for the proper technique.Septentrionalis17:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that's very amateurish and quite unencyclopedic. Is there anything on that website that can't be found at Rummel's, or in the Black Book of Communism? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It may help to demonstrate that a variety of Right ideologies join in the criticism, instead of it being Rummel's private project, as Ultramarine's list would make it appear. I'm not sure that the external links have to be WP quality; they are the subject of this article, not an extension of it. Septentrionalis15:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
We have four Rummel references already, one of which is on-line and links to these. Eight is ridiculous. I have no objection to changing which ones we include, if Ultramarine prefers. Septentrionalis
Three of these are book references and not external links. I removed two of these that seemed to be duplicates. Regarding the external links, Rummel is probably the only scholar that presents the details of his scholarly estimates online. Therefore there is nothing wrong with having this linked in some detail. Note that most of the links only goes to graphs and tables. Ultramarine18:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Your version excludes:
"Thus, as a defense of communism, it is claimed that so-called "Communist states" are unrelated (or only distantly related) to an ideal communist society. Therefore, it is argued, the failings of these states should not be taken as failings of communism per se. Critics of communism find fault with this reasoning, noting that this argument cannot be falsified and is therefore not scientific. Were it valid, they argue, it could similarly be applied to capitalism, fascism or other ideologies." Ultramarine12:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
The argument does not make sense. What is an "ideal capitalist society"? How about an "ideal fascist society"? There is no agreement among capitalists on how an ideal capitalist society would look like - or even if such a thing exists. In the case of fascism, those who created the theory (Mussolini and Hitler) were the same people who implemented the theory in practice - thus it is very hard to argue that the practice does not correspond to the theory. This is not the case with communism, where those who implemented the theory in practice (Lenin, etc.) weren't even born when the theory was written (by Marx). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu13:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I think we can agree that when used without qualification capitalist society simply refers to those societies that are generally called capitalist societies, rather than to any platonic ideal in the head of some anarcho-capitalist, no? Arker06:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you arguing that all communists agree on the ideal communist society? Using the same defense strategy, I could argue that no society has ever been anarcho-capitalist, and thus that there has never been an ideal capitalist society. And that every problem in so called "capitalist states" can be explained by this. Ultramarine19:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
First of all, no communist claims that every problem in the so-called "communist states" is due to the fact that those states did not follow some perfect communist ideal. Rather, the argument goes that those states disregarded some of the most basic principles of communism - like a capitalist state banning the market, for example. Furthermore, capitalism, unlike communism, has more than one ideology to uphold it. All communists base their ideas more or less accurately on the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Capitalists, on the other hand, may be liberals, conservatives, libertarians... Capitalists are not united by a single ideology. Supporters of anarcho-capitalism may argue that every problem of capitalism today could be solved by their ideal system (and they often do make this claim), but they do not have a monopoly on the notion of "capitalism" in the same way that Marxists have a monopoly on the notion of "communism". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
If Ultramarine can find an example of this criticism, I am perfectly willing to include a summary of what it actually says. But I will be surprised to see one; the argument is very weak. There is consensus among Communists that a "communist" society (in the strict sense of the word) would be desirable; there is no such consensus among capitalists. Many capitalists, and even some Libertarians, would oppose anarcho-capitalism, for example. Septentrionalis16:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Marx never gave any specific details or requirements regarding how the Communist society should be organized, except some contradictory comments about the Paris Commune discussed elsewhere. Thus, there can be no more consensus regarding ideology than Capitalist consensus about ideology, and arguably less since all capitalists agree on basic details of how society should be organized, like free markets, profit, some income inequality, free enterprise, and property rights. They only thing Communist agree on is that some of these things should not be in the Communist society, which is less specific, and they disagree on for example whether there should be markets and inequality. Ultramarine05:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but we're not talking about Marx alone here, we're talking about Marx and Engels and Lenin, and everyone else in between. They filled in the gaps in Marx's work. Also, you seem to be misinformed. There are no communists who believe that markets and inequality could exist in a communist society. In addition, note that communism is supported by one ideology, whereas capitalism is supported by many mutually exclusive ideologies. The liberal view of capitalism cannot be reconciled with the conservative view, for example. Finally, keep in mind that no "communist state" ever claimed to have achieved communism. Thus, calling their system "communism" implies that you (a non-communist) reserve for yourself the right to define what communism means. This is absurd. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:46, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You make numerous mistakes. Not all Marxists are Leninists. Thus, the only thing that all communists have in common are the works of Marx and Engel. What was said about Marx also applies to Engel. There are are communists who have supported and argued that markets are necessary. Read more on for example Oskar Lange. Thus my argument still stands. Ultramarine10:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Not all Marxists are communists. And all the Marxists who ever ruled a Communist state were (or claimed to be) Leninists. Thus they can be judged by Leninist standards of Communism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu11:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Socialism is a much broader concept than Communism. Marxism obviously refers to the ideas of Marx, which includes the classless communist society. Thus, all Marxists are communists. Do NOT delete my edits [40].
Socialism is a much broader concept than communism. Marxism obviously refers to the ideas of Marx, which includes the classless communist society. Thus, all Marxists are communists. Ultramarine22:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, Ultramarine, you are correct. All Marxists should be communists. However, there are many people who consider themselves Marxists and who say that they are only socialists, not communists. If you wish to argue that they are mistaken, then you leave the door open to similar arguments to the effect that the leaders of the Soviet Union, for example, were mistaken in calling themselves communists. And I know you just can't tolerate that, can you? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to contain inaccurate statements, even if some people believe them. Thus, as you admit, people calling themselves Marxists but not Communists should be excluded. On the other hand, you have presented no evidence that the leaders of the Communist states who called themselves Marxists did not follow Marx's ideas. Ultramarine14:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you serious? Everything written by Leon Trotsky during the last 10 years of his life [41] (particularly The Revolution Betrayed [42]) was dedicated to proving that the leaders of the Soviet Union were not Marxists. Trotsky's intellectual heirs later extended these arguments to all the post-war Communist states. I'd also like to remind you that in the realm of political ideas and labels, there are no such things as "inaccurate statements" like "2+2=5". Politics is all a matter of opinion. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
But that line of argument will get us nowhere. After giving it a bit of thought, I remembered that this defence which you deplore so much HAS in fact been applied to a number of other ideologies besides Communism. Nobody actually believes that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is really democratic, for example. Likewise, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia clearly does not support liberal democracy. It appears our deadlock was caused by your insistence on using capitalism as an example of an ideology to which the defence can be applied, when it is in fact much more correctly applied to democracy and liberalism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
A crime cannot be justified by others also doing crimes. If democrats or fascist supporters argued that the problems in all states claiming to be following these principles can be explained by that all of these states were and are in fact not democratic or fascist, then this defense could still be criticized.
However, most democrats and fascists do not attempt this defense. They may apply it to some of the states claiming to be democratic, for example, but not to all, like the communists do. However, if this communist defence was valid, it could certainly also be used by democrats, capitalists, and fascists. Ultramarine14:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, I'd like to remind you that no state ever claimed to be communist, and that no one argued that ALL problems in Communist states were caused by their not following communist principles. Also, if you want to criticize the argument that "North Korea isn't democratic", be my guest. I'm sure Kim Jong-Il would be delighted. Oh, and by the way, all Communist states claimed to be democratic. Thus, advocates of democracy use this defense you hate so much just as often as communists do, because they use it to exclude the very same states. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
See previous answer. Again, democrats do not exclude all states claiming to be democratic states like the communists do with Communist states. If they did, the same criticism could be applied to them.
Regarding Trotsky from a few paragraphs up, please add his arguments to text. Lenin certainly cited Marx and Engels numerous times to show that he had support for his policy of creating an authoritarian state and not have general democracy during the dictatorship of the proletariat Ultramarine16:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Cuba
Your version excludes this:
Cuba is often cited as a successful example of by communists. However, Cuba was one of most developed nations in Latin America before Castro. Other Latin American nations have seen greater increases in literacy than Cuba. Calories per person has declined in Cuba while it has increased in most other Latin American nations. Cubans eat less cereals and meat than before Castro [44]. Ultramarine10:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
This is part of the comparison controversy (comparing communist states with capitalist countries) and will be incorporated in a larger discussion of that controversy. The last time we handled this subject it resulted in the utter mess over at The Black Book of Communism, so this time we'll have to be more organized. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
"Comparison controversy" is just an informal title I use for the practice (on both sides of the communism vs. capitalism argument) to compare various communist states with various capitalist ones and draw conclusions from this comparison. I don't think anyone else uses the term, and there are certainly no books written on it, so it doesn't deserve its own article. I strongly believe we should keep all criticisms of communism in one place - because if there's something we omit here, you can bet someone will later come along, ignore the link to the article where the matter is discussed, and ask why we don't present it here. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu18:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Now, going back to the comparison controversy, it goes something like this: Anti-communists compare X with Y, and point out that the capitalist country was better off. Communists point out flaws (such as other factors that could have influenced prosperity besides the economic system) and come up with a comparison between Z and W. Anti-communists retaliate with another comparison of their own, and so on ad nauseaum until the whole discussion degenerates into an argument over which countries are more capitalist than others. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu18:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Your version excludes:
"One response is that many social sciences like psychology, economics, and political science are increasingly being tested, for example by statistical methods." Ultramarine10:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
That is just the point. If it cannot be tested, it is a pseudoscience, unlike for example those fields of economics and political science that can be tested. Please correct your text. Ultramarine22:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, the real test for any science is the controlled, repeatable and falsifiable experiment, not statistics. Set up a controlled, repeatable and falsifiable experiment in political science or economics, and I'll be impressed. I can add your point about statistics if you really insist, but you'll have to reformulate it so it doesn't imply that statistics can determine whether a hypothesis is true. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Statistics can be used to show both correlation and causality. Other variables can be controlled for. The theories are falsifiable when using statistical tests. The statistical tests can be repeated by other persons. New data are continuously being generated from the real-world. Correct your text. Ultramarine19:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Statistics can be used to show correlation, but certainly not causality. It may be true that teenage boys eat lots of chocolate, and that teenage boys have acne. Does that mean that chocolate causes acne, or that acne makes you eat chocolate? See correlation implies causation (logical fallacy). And while statistics are indeed repeatable, they are not a controlled experiment. The number of variables you need to take into consideration is immense, and, especially in the case of social sciences, it may be that some of those variables are difficult to measure, hidden, or unknown to science (the human psyche still has many mysteries, after all). But here's an idea: Let's start a public poll. I wager that no other wikipedian will support your absurd idea that statistics can be used to prove a hypothesis. Especially those wikipedians who contribute to articles on hard science. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
You do not seem to understand that more advanced statistics the simple correlations are used. These methods can indeed show causation. Additional variables can and have been controlled for. Such results can sometimes be criticized with the use of other variables or methods; however, this is normal for science and shows that it is not a pseudoscience which is not falsifiable. Ultramarine03:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Causation cannot be proven by statistics. This is a scientific, mathematical fact, and it is not open for debate. If anyone claims that his statistics show causation, then he is lying. End of story. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
None of this is really relevant, because the widely accepted definitions of "science" and "pseudoscience" don't allow for reasonable analysis of any given issue to necessarily be considered a study of nature. This is what the definition should be; the tern "pseudoscience" creates a connotation that something is essentially irrelevant to our study of nature, which is obviously untrue in the cases of psychology and social sciences (like historical materialism). This should be noted if we are to call it a pseudoscience in the article at all, but these words really have little bearing on the real importance of historical materialism. In reference to the correlation implies causation issue, it's true that one can't "prove" thjat, but one can't prove either that chemical science isn't the cause of some god, and not an objective reality. One should take the issue of science versus pseudoscience, with their current definitions, with a grain of salt. Nothing can REALLY be proven, guys...Dean_Sayers 15:13, 9/19/2005
Human rights
Your version excludes:
"to have continued to occur in all communist states during their existence." For example, no Free speech.
If you're talking about free speech, this will be included in the free speech section. However, your version includes this statement in the section on mass murder, which makes it false. Mass murder was concentrated in specific countries at specific times. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu13:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
The same, however, can be said for any state prior to the 20th century. Indeed, the states that don't violate human rights (as they are defined today) systematically are the exception, not the rule. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
As you have insisted, the section is called "20th century Communist states". Thus is they can be compared with other 20th century states. And many did not systematically violate human rights. For example, the democratic capitalist states in Sweden or Canada. Ultramarine20:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, for the majority of the 20th century, the only states that did not violate human rights were those of North America, (most of) those of Europe, and a few of those of Latin America. But suit yourself. I have added the following:
"Large scale human rights violations occurred in Communist states. The most common of these were restrictions on freedom of speech (in the form of censorship, discussed above). Such restrictions existed, to a greater or lesser degree, in nearly all Communist states during most of their existence. Usually, newly established Communist states maintained or tightened the level of censorship that was present in those countries before the Communists came to power; indeed, the Communists themselves were most often subjected to censorship. As a result, after coming to power, they argued that they wanted to fight the former ruling class using its own weapons, either as a form of vengeance or to prevent it from staging a counter-revolution." -- Mihnea Tudoreanu08:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Democracy
Your version excludes:
"However, Marx never insisted on this and he rejected the concept of liberal democracy. That all the Communist states became and remained totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism." Ultramarine10:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Marx (and Lenin, and all the other communists) always insisted that democracy was a central part of their principles. They rejected liberal ("bourgeois") democracy, of course, but embraced the notion of democracy itself. As my version points out, some communist states even adopted the name of "Democratic Republics". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu13:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You two appear to be using two different definitions of the word "liberal", one associated with 'civil society', the other with 'bourgeois'. This is one reason to avoid the phrase, as ambiguous. Septentrionalis16:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
He never explicitly required much at all for his dictatorship of the proletariat - he said very little about it (because he thought that planning the future constituted utopian socialism). I will gladly add the fact that he rejected liberal democracy and supported direct democracy - under which section would you like me to add it? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I do not think it matter exactly where. Please also include the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" which many critques have used. And also the point "That all the Communist states became and remained totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism." Ultramarine22:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
There is a problem with that argument, however. As the Historical Atlas of the 20th Century points out [45], no democracy older than 3 years ever became a Communist state. The majority of Communist states replaced other dictatorships, not democracies. The only exceptions are to be found in Eastern Europe after WW2, and even there, the interlude of democracy between wartime dictatorships and post-war Communist states was short (with the 3 year maximum being reached in Czechoslovakia, 1945-1948). Thus, you can hardly blame the communists for creating dictatorships. At most, they just maintained them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It's important because it shows that Communist states did not become dictatorships under Communist rule. They were already dictatorships (with the aforementioned exception of 4 very young Eastern European democracies). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu15:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Mihnea would do better, and have a shorter time limit, if he simply acknowledged Czechoslovakia as an exception: the Government of 1945-8 was the successor in interest and policy to the First Czechoslovak Republic. Therefore 3 very young Eastern European democracies and Czechoslovakia, which had been severely brutalized in the Second World War.Septentrionalis15:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The Communist states used their energy very inefficiently, getting much less economic growth from the same amount of energy than the Western nations and the Third World.
I find the graph almost unreadable (and it borders on being a crystal ball); the text is strikingly incomplete. A neutral version would add something like:
The Soviet Union was an exporter of oil; China has vast supplies of coal. There was no reason for them to avoid energy-intensive development.
Your version excludes:
But many of the Communist states were often critical of Stalin and tried many variants of communism beside Stalinism, with little success. Those variants that were more successful resembled capitalism, like Lenin's New Economic Policy. Ultramarine10:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Pure POV. Firstly, those states who were critical of Stalin were the Soviet Union and its allies after 1953. They might have criticized Stalinism, but, in practice, they kept the same government structures that Stalin had created. Secondly, who are you to say they had "little success"? According to them, they were very successful - because the Soviet Union became the world's second largest economy, for example. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu13:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Tito was a loyal Stalinist until Stalin tried to bring Yugoslavia under his control. Mao likewise admired Stalin and Maoism is built upon Stalinism (remember that one of the major issues in the Sino-Soviet split was that the USSR repudiated Stalin while China did not). Juche was also built upon Stalinism, and many call North Korea "Stalinist" today. You may have a point about the Khmer Rouge, but, according to all the other communists, they were just a lunatic fringe group (which is saying something!). Glasnost and Perestroika were clearly not Stalinist, but they happened in the Soviet Union and therefore fit with what I said above ("those states who were critical of Stalin were the Soviet Union and its allies after 1953"). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I propose the following compromise:
Many Marxists and some Marxist-Leninists argue that most Communist states did not actually adhere to Marxism-Leninism but rather to a perversion heavily influenced by Stalinism. On the other hand, many of the the Communist states were critical of Stalin, especially after his death. They tried many different political and economical systems during their existence. Examples include War communism, the New Economic Policy, Stalinism, Titoism, Juche, Perestroika, and Glasnost. Maoism is a broad concept that includes episodes such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the Red Khmers. However, many Marxists argue that the Communist states continued to use many of Stalin institutions and thus continued to be Stalinist. Ultramarine23:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It is quite easy to read this paragraph as saying that that Stalinism (or NEP or Juche...) was one of the systems tried by Communist states critical of Stalin. It is much harder to see what it is supposed to mean. What does Ultramarine mean? Septentrionalis23:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Clearly, neither War Communism nor the NEP were instituted by Communist states "critical of Stalin", because Stalin hadn't even risen to power yet. Tito, as I pointed out above, only criticized Stalin's policy towards Eastern Europe, not his style of governing. North Korea has never criticized Stalin, and neither has Mao. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu14:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Titoism was very different from Stalinism, see for example Milovan_Djilas. I propose the following:
Many Marxists and some Marxist-Leninists argue that most Communist states did not actually adhere to Marxism-Leninism but rather to a perversion heavily influenced by Stalinism. On the other hand, many of the the Communist states were critical of Stalin, especially after his death. They tried many different political and economical systems during their existence. Examples include Titoism, Juche, Perestroika, and Glasnost. Maoism is a broad concept that includes episodes such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, and the Red Khmers. Lenin tried War communism and the New Economic Policy. However, many Marxists argue that the Communist states continued to use many of Stalin institutions and thus continued to be Stalinist. Ultramarine15:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, out of all the systems you mention, the only ones tried out by communists who were critical of Stalin have been Titoism and Perestroika/Glasnost (which go together - they're not separate systems). Your point could be included in a section that discusses the way some Communist states opposed and criticized other Communist states. Such a section does not currently exist, and I don't feel it necessary to create one (because it would be splitting hairs). But one can be created if you really wish. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't have one; I don't think a section on the relationships between different Communist states is necessary, because they were all very similar to each other (at least to the same degree that different liberal democracies are similar to each other). If you want such a section, though, I'm open to suggestions. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It is false to state that the Communist states were very similar to each other. Many different policies were tried. From the profit-sharing in Titoism to almost primitivism by the Red Khmers. I propse the following:
Many Marxists and some Marxist-Leninists argue that most Communist states did not actually adhere to Marxism-Leninism but rather to a perversion heavily influenced by Stalinism. On the other hand, many of the the Communist states were critical of Stalin and many of his policies, especially after his death. They tried many different political and economical systems during their existence. Examples include the profit-sharing in Titoism, the extreme self-reliance in Juche, and the reforms in Perestroika, and Glasnost. Maoism is a broad concept that includes episodes such as the self-sufficient communes during the Great Leap Forward, the anti-intellectualism during the Cultural Revolution, and the almost primitivstRed Khmers. Lenin tried War communism and the New Economic Policy. However, many Marxists argue that the Communist states continued to use many of Stalin institutions and thus continued to be Stalinist. Ultramarine04:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Equally many policies were tried in capitalist countries - from laissez-faire to the welfare state. We already have a section to discuss the Communist critique of Communist states. What exactly is the point of this paragraph that you insist on inserting? So far, the only possible purpose for it that I see is to endorse your POV that Communist states tried many different systems and all of them failed. Even if it were true, and those systems were as different as you claim, then that would just serve as evidence for the argument that many "Communist states" were not in fact Communist. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to place all Communist states under the same category and criticize them together, then you have to admit that they were mostly similar to each other. If, on the other hand, you want to argue that they had major differences, then we'll have to break up this article into "Criticisms of Stalinism", "Criticisms of Maoism", "Criticisms of Titoism", etc. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu08:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The point being that it is very doubtful that the problems can be explained by arguing that the Communist states were "Stalinist". Ultramarine12:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
No one is trying to explain away everything based on Stalinism. However, many specific things that were introduced by Stalin and later used by a multitude of Communist states (such as purges, show trials, rewriting history, and arguably also things like autocratic leadership and extreme violations of human rights, etc.) can reasonably be blamed on Stalinism. If you believe that those later Communist states were so different from the USSR under Stalin that Stalin's legacy was irrelevant to them, then we need to split up the article, like I said, into "Criticisms of Stalinism", "Criticisms of Maoism", "Criticisms of Titoism", etc. You seem to insist that Communist states are similar enough for us to put them all under the same category and tar them with the same brush, but too different to have been influenced by a common ancestor like Stalin. Make up your mind. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu15:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
The text already includes your argument that "the Communist states continued to use many of Stalin institutions and thus continued to be Stalinist." However, as the text notes, many of the Communist states had in some ways had very different institutions that those under Stalin. Therefore, it is doubtful if they can be claissified as Stalinist. However, they all argued that they followed Marx. I propose the followng to make the argument clearer:
Many communist supporters argue that most Communist states did not actually adhere to Marxism but rather to a perversion heavily influenced by Stalinism. On the other hand, all of the states themselves claimed to be following Marxism. In many ways their institutions often differed from those under Stalin. Examples include the profit-sharing in Titoism, the extreme self-reliance in Juche, and the reforms in Perestroika, and Glasnost. Maoism is a broad concept that includes episodes such as the self-sufficient communes during the Great Leap Forward, the anti-intellectualism during the Cultural Revolution, and the almost primitivstRed Khmers. Lenin tried War communism and the New Economic Policy. However, communist supporters often argue that problems such as systematic human rights violations can be explained by institutions created by Stalin and later used by other Communist states. Ultramarine05:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Dictatorship of the proletariat and the Paris Commune
Your version excludes:
"However, Marx’s dream of a socialist revolution involved a transitory phase known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Later, Marx reasoned, the state would "whither away". The Communist states claimed to be in this transitory phase and to be "working towards communism". It can thus be argued that the Communist states followed Marx's theory and that it failed to work in the real world." Ultramarine11:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
The only things Marx ever said about the dictatorship of the proletariat were that 1. The proletariat would be the ruling class, and 2. It would look somewhat like the Paris Commune. The fact that the communist states claimed to follow Marx's theory is obvious; whether they actually did follow it is very controversial, with communists as early as 1936 (the year Trotsky wrote The Revolution Betrayed) claiming that the communist states were non-Marxist. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu13:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
and the paragraph as phrased would be PoV even if it were correct. "Dream"? a tendentious word if there ever was one. However, if M does not note that the communist states failed to achieve true communism while claiming to head there, I will add it. Septentrionalis22:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I have added some more arguments. "Some communist supporters argue that the Communist states were not communist since they were not democratic. However, Marx rejected the concept of liberal democracy. He never gave any specific details or had any explicit requirements regarding how the dictatorship of the proletariat should be implemented. Some argue that Marx and Engels may have supported the claimed direct democracy of the Paris Commune as a model for transition to communism. Others dispute this [46] and there were human rights violations even during the few months the Commune existed [47]. That all the Communist states became and remained totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism." Please include. Ultramarine21:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The Paris Commune did not "violate human rights" any more than the French state which preceded it or the French state which followed it. As a matter of fact, thousands of communards were executed without trial by the new authorities after the Commune was crushed by the French army. Thus, your argument is based on a double standard. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu21:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
That is still no excuse. See the initial argument in "There were human rights violations before the Communists took poower" below. Ultramarine21:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Your argument below only applies to cases where the violations by communist states were far greater than those by the states which preceded or followed them. In other cases, you are holding a double standard and trying to insert a piece of utter hypocrisy into the article. This will not fly. To use your Hitler example: If Hitler exterminated Jews at a time when every other country in Europe (including his enemies) also exterminated Jews, then you could not use this as a criticism against Hitler in particular. You could only use it to criticize the entire historical period he lived in. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You are actually saying that is other nations had killed more Jews, then one could not criticize Hitler for killing Jews? Only "the entire historical period he lived in"? Ultramarine10:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. You could not single out Hitler as a mass murderer of Jews and criticize him alone for it if other countries were doing the same at the same time. You would have to criticize all those countries together, or the entire historical period. But here's a real-world example to illustrate the same point: You cannot criticize one particular Greek city-state for endorsing slavery, because all Greek city-states endorsed slavery. At most, you could criticize the entire historical period (the Ancient world) for being a time when slavery was commonplace. Do you understand now? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu11:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, I think it is better to continue the earlier discussion about "Democracy" here. I still ask that Marx's rejection of liberal democracy should be included as well as "That all the Communist states became and remained totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism." Ultramarine21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Alright, here's a compromise: I will add this argument, but also the counter-argument that the vast majority of those states were undemocratic (and violated human rights) long before communist rule. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu21:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
This argument is discussed elsewhere, see "See the initial argument in "There were human rights violations before the Communists took poower" below." Ultramarine21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
As you have failed to explain why they should not be included, I again ask that the critical facts regarding Dictatorship of the proletariat, the Paris Commune, and Democracy should be included. See also the latest arguments regarding this here [48]Ultramarine19:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Your version states "Finally, in the first half of the 1980s, Hungary, with a largely collectivised agriculture, exported more agricultural products than France from an agricultural area little more than a quarter of the French (FAO production, 1986, FAO Trade vol. 40, 1986).". This is contradicted by FAO's own statistcal database [50]. Remove or add this contradiction. Ultramarine15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest you calm down. It's not a mortal sin to move someone's text to a more appropriate section of the Talk page. Anyway, I did a FAO query of my own, and, as it turns out, all agricultural production indices are higher for Hungary than France during the early 80's (though exports are not). [52] -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Such indices compare food production in the same country over time. They cannot be used to compare food production in different countries at the same time. Look at this [53], Hungary produces less than France however you measure. Ultramarine21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, you cannot easily compare countries with these indices. Note that France exported about 10 times more than Hungary, which is interesting considering that Hungary exported from "from an agricultural area little more than a quarter of the French". Ultramarine21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if both claims are correct. France produced high-value cash crops for export. Thus Hungary may have produced more tonnage (such as grain and fodder for the Soviet Union) but France more cash-value, as in Ultramarine's table. I'm not sure that this can be described as a triumph of capitalism, however. Much French produce was bought by the EU's Agricultural Support Policy, with its 'butter mountains' and 'wine lakes'. Septentrionalis15:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read the above links you would have noticed that France produced more in almost all categories, including grain and fodder. Ultramarine03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Sentence not in present text. If it returns, it should have accompanying statistics, at least name of table and page citation. Septentrionalis17:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Terrorism
"Several of the Communist states directly supported terrorist groups with money, training and safe bases. Examples include the PFLP, the Red Army Fraction, and the Japanese Red Army." There is a short chapter in Black Book of Communism about this. Please include. Ultramarine20:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Hypocrisy and a double standard, yet again. Several capitalist states, including staunchly anti-communist ones, also supported terrorist groups with money, training and safe bases. The American support for Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the 80's is the most glaring example (particularly since it eventually backfired). In any case, this article is about criticisms of communism, not criticisms of things that communists, along with many others, did. Criticisms of X ideology have to be based on bad things that X ideology did and other ideologies did not do - or bad things that X ideology did to a much greater extent than others. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
There is no such requirement. Problems in other political systems cannot be used as an justification. Are you saying that if other nations used torture, then one cannot criticze a nation and the persons who torture? And few would argue that the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation was terrorism. Ultramarine10:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, problems in other political systems can be used as a justification. If it doesn't matter what other systems did, then you could criticize Communist states for such outlandish things as not providing every one of their citizens with a flying car, or failing to completely eliminate murder, or failing to make each and every one of their people happy, etc. You need some terms of comparison. And you just highlighted one of the problems with accusations of "terrorism": One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
The last is good point which should be added to the text. Still, many consider the mentioned organization to be terrorists. The support can thus be criticzed. Ultramarine12:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I would say, rather, that support for the organizations has been criticized by responsible observers and that we can verify that critique. After all, we are here to document notable criticisms, not to criticize communism ourselves. Robert A West14:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You evaded my main point, Ultramarine. If Communist states did something wrong that was also done by a multitude of other states, then you cannot criticize Communism in particular for it. At most, you could mention something about terrorist organizations being supported by both sides during the Cold War. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Does this means that one cannot criticze capitalist states for poverty, inequality, and so on since these problems exists in other states? Ultramarine13:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"The great blessing problem of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The great problem of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Inequality is, arguably, part and parcel of capitalism, so is a fair criticism. As for poverty, if capitalist countries have no more poverty than non-capitalist countries, it makes little sense to criticize them for poverty, unless capitalism is so good at producing bounty that it could easily afford the small portion needed to abolish poverty. Similarly, to criticize Communist regimes for terrorism requires showing they did so more, worse or with less excuse than competing regimes. I think that this can be shown, but hand-waving won't do. Robert A West23:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that you now suddenly wants to continue do discuss the facts, after I asked for page protection. Please restore the Two-version template.
Regarding your arguments, you make several speculations but have no facts. In fact, capitalist countries have much lower poverty. See the Index of Economic Freedom. Inequality has existed in every nation, and you have presented no evidence that it is greater in capitalist nations, arguably there is today greater inequality in North Korea, where the poor starve to death while the top live in utmost luxury, than in South Korea. However, as noted earlier, I find this whole argument strange. Possible crimes in other political systems cannot justify crimes in a political system. Ultramarine10:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The Gini index of Eastern Europe was far lower before 1990 than after 1990, showing that their transition to capitalism did indeed result in an increase in economic inequality. Also, the point is not that crimes in one system can justify crimes in another - the point is that crimes in one system give a different perspective to the same crimes in another system. As noted above, if you could criticize Communist states without regard for the standards set by non-Communist states, you could invent such absurd criticisms as "Communist states did not give their citizens flying cars". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu15:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine, are you objecting to my speculation that you can find sources that will help you meet Mihnea's objection? If not, to what do you object? Robert A West01:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
There were human rights violations before the Communists took poower
"Some supporters of communism find this approach simplistic, noting that humans rights violations such as executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both non-democratic Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist takeovers. However, past evils in an old regime can hardly be used to justify new ones; otherwise supporters of Hitler could justify his deeds by pointing to past human rights crimes by the German Empire in Africa. Advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them. However, this defense can also be criticized. Alexander Solzhenitsyn argues in his book Gulag Archipelago that the living conditions and death rates of the inmates in the Soviet era Gulags were much worse than those of the Tsarist era Katorgas. The worst crop failure of late Tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths, while famines under both Lenin and Stalin caused many millions of deaths [54]." Please include the critical arguments. Ultramarine21:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Past evils of an old regime can be brought up as arguments that the new regime is no worse than the old one. If the crimes of the German Empire in Africa were as bad as the Holocaust, this would make a perfectly good argument for the claim that the German Empire was no better than Hitler. Similarly, if a certain capitalist regime engaged in the same kinds of crimes as its communist successor, this would make a perfectly good argument for the claim that the capitalist regime in question was no better than the communist one. You seem to make the mistake of trying to criticize practical communist states by comparing them to liberal theory. This is unacceptable. You must compare practice with practice, not practice with theory. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. You seem to be saying what is already included. "Advocates reply that they only seek to put the events into perspective, not justify them.". Are you accepting the current version? Ultramarine10:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
What is your suggestion? And again, even if other nations killed more Jews than Hitler, then Hitler could still be criticzed. However, this is not the case here, the Communists were worse than the comparison. Ultramarine11:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
See the example I used in another discussion further above: You cannot criticize one particular Greek city-state for endorsing slavery, because all Greek city-states endorsed slavery. At most, you could criticize the entire historical period (the Ancient World) for being a time when slavery was commonplace. Do you understand now? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu09:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Does this means that one cannot criticze capitalist states for poverty, inequality, and so on since these problems exists in other states? Ultramarine13:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
You can criticize them for it as long as you mention the fact that these problems are not unique to capitalism. And if advocates of feudalism tried to criticize capitalism for inequality, for example, they would be hypocrites and their criticism would not be valid. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu15:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
"Soviet technology generally lagged Western technology by many years. Exceptions include areas like the Soviet space program and military technology where sometimes the Communist technology was more advanced due to a massive concentration of research resources. Generally, however, much of the technology in the Communist states consisted simply of copies of Western products that had been legally purchased or gained through a massive espionage program. Stricter Western control of the export of technology through COCOM is often cited as one of the reasons for the fall of Communism [55]." Please include Ultramarine21:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Your text "Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven, in the sense that some sectors surged ahead while others lagged behind. As noted above, the Soviet space program saw remarkable progress, and so did pure science and military technology, in all Communist states. Consumer products, on the other hand, were typically several years behind their Western counterparts. According to the CIA [3], a number of Soviet products were in fact using Western technology, which had been either legally purchased or obtained through espionage. This situation has been largely attributed to the fact that economic planners in the Soviet Union and elsewhere were accountable to the government, but, in the absence of democracy, they were not accountable to the people. Thus, their plans tended to focus on long-term goals and scientific and military development, rather than the short-term needs of the population."
Very POV, for the most part even in the space program and military technology the Communists lagged. The same applies for pure science, for example very few Noble prize winners from Communist states. Ultramarine13:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Even your own source admitted that "In pure science, the Soviets deserved their impressive reputation, and their space program demonstrated originality and accomplishment in rocket engineering". Also, notice that there always were far more capitalist states than Communist states, so it is to be expected that most Nobel prize winners would not be citizens of Communist states. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu15:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my version already states that the Communist space technology occasionally were more advanced. But no one argues that is always was or at the same level, as your version misleadingly implies. The same thing is true for military technology [56]. And this only applies to the Soviet union, not "all Communist states". Regarding nobel prizes, see this [57]. Thus, your version is factually incorrect. Please correct. Ultramarine16:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
East Germany
What is the source for that East Germany was less developed than West Germany after the war? It is true that the Soviet Union seized much of the industry and railroads in East Germany and simply moved it to the Soviet Union. It is also true that many people fled to West Germany before the Berlin Wall. But these problems were caused by the Communist states and cannot thus be used as an excuse for lagging development. Ultramarine11:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You are incorrect. Saxony was considered the technology center of Central Europe before WWII. Berlin was a major center of which East Germany got half. West Berlin was of doubtful value since it was isolated and the industry there instead had to be heavily subsidized by the rest of West Germany. Of course Ruhr was a major industrial center, but this does not prove that the much larger West Germany as a whole was more developed. Ultramarine21:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You have not even succeeded in contradicting the text, or my enlargment on it. Berlin was a city, but it was the capital. If Ultramarine includes government expenditure as a form of development, I encourage him to include the roaring success of Moscow (and I suppose Bucharest) in the text. Mihnea will be amused. Septentrionalis22:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
We are discussing Germany here. Regarding Berlin "In the early decades of the 20th century, Berlin was the leading industrial city in Europe." But this was of little value to the rest of West Germany "But only heavily subsidized industry stayed within the city, creating an artificially upheld industrial economy with very little increase in value. Altogether, more than half of the city’s revenues were direct subsidies from the West German government in 1989." [58]. Ultramarine22:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You've reached contradiction; I shall rephrase.
East Germany contained Saxony, Brandenburg, Pomerania, Mecklenburg, and some of Thuringia. With the exception of the Kingdom of Saxony, which was a small part of Saxony, and the city of Berlin, these were always relatively rural districts, and remained pretty much so through 1945. Where does Ultramarine suppose the Prussian junkers came from? He thinks them very important in other discussions.
Germany's industry was in the Rhineland which had the coal, the steel, and the communications - and to some extent in Silesia, which fell to Poland. The Hohenzollerns subsidized, and the market of their capital supported, the industry of Berlin; the Nazis subsidized the armament industry nearby. The industry of both halves of Berlin was crippled by the disappearance of this support, and the limitations of trans-German trade. This was a consequence of the political and economic division of Germany, not of the particular systems which divided it. Does Ultramarine wish to argue that the Communists erred in not maintaining the Zollverein? Septentrionalis23:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
See my earlier comments. You make lots of claims without sources. Here is a source for Saxony being considered the technology center of Central Europe before WWII [59]. Again, as noted, West Berlin was crippled by its isolation and its former industry was of no use to West Germany. Instead, West Germany had to heavily subsidize West Berlin. The communist states are of course to blame for this isolation, they created the Berlin Wall and sometimes blocked all land transportation to the city from West Germany. Obviously East Berlin could easily trade with the rest of East Germany and it was the Communists who stopped the exchange with West Berlin by building the Wall. Ultramarine13:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Which did as much for East Berlin as trading with the rest of the Austrian Republic did for Vienna in 1919. I will remind you that the comparison in question is between West and East Germany, not West and East Berlin. West Berlin was a small cost to the BRD. As for sources, the Britannica and your own website [60] will suffice. What do you dispute? Septentrionalis14:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
That version of Britannica is from 1911, not from 1945. Anyhow, it does not support you, it notes that Saxony was one of the major industrial centers of Germany. Berlin was as noted earlier the leading industrial city in Europe and therefore certainly relevant. My source about Berlin do not support your claims. Ultramarine14:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Did you read the section on the "History of Berlin's Industrialization", or did you simply google out the quote? I grant that one has to page down a dozen pages, but I invite you to do so.
The text there only states that some industry were subsided. No mention that all industries were or that any were before the Nazis, after the 1840s. Regarding the Nazi support of the armament industry, such industry would also have been useful after the war. The Communists were never shy about using much of the resources for building weapons.Ultramarine17:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The State Department's Country Study on East Germany, chapter 3, section on Mining, Energy, and Industry, says: "Before World War II, the area that later became East Germany was not well developed industrially. Because this area lacked raw materials, heavy industry was generally located in other parts of the German state." A few sections earlier, it describes the interwar internal German trade, in which the chief products of the later East Germany were agricultural. Septentrionalis15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
This is frivolous. I have read your tourguide on Berlin; I have seen your unsourced quote on Saxony. I have read the country guide. They are not contradictory; they are complementary. The Saxon Kingdom had very early, and very skilled, light industry (see Meissen); Berlin had very extensive (mostly light) industry, chiefly geared to the physical support or the luxury trade of the capital: Railway plant, sewing machines, bicycles, pens, soap, pianos, gloves, buttons, articifial flowers, cloaks [from EB].... The rest was countryside, except for the Nazi defense plants, which would have been targets in the war.
I have given you three sources, and a narrative. In a fraction of the time you have spent inventing a new economic history for Germany, you could have added Ukraina to the collaborative version. I know which I would consider more useful, and which less trollish. Septentrionalis20:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmm.. You seem to think that "light" industry is somehow inferior to "heavy" industry. This was a common view in Communist countries, maybe because heavy industry could produce weapons while light industry only produced consumer goods. I disagree with this view. West Germany also had much countryside, such an argument says nothing about average development.You have given only one source which support your position, the last. Ultramarine20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Bertrand Russell and Emma Goldman - resolved
Bertrand Russell and Emma Goldman[61] were not Marxists. They were socialists critical of Marxism. Thus is it inaccurate to have them in a section called "Communist critique of Communist states". My version is more accurate with more information and contains Marxists that were critical even before the October revolution [62]. Ultramarine22:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The present text expressly says that they were members of the non-Communist Left. You probably want to look a little further before you call Goldman a socialist, however. I have changed the section header, although making an accuracy dispute out of a section wandering a little away from its label does seem a trifle far-fatched. Septentrionalis22:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
My version is still better with more history and better examples, considering that the section is a communist defense and do not mention critique of Marxism itself, which non-Marxist socialists would. Your version is still factually inaccurate in other sections, like on East Germany and Technology. Ultramarine12:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Insofar as I can make out a thesis in this confused text, it is arguing that Communists do not hold that the Revolution will be conducted by elections, but - to quote another non-Communist thinker- by blood and iron. This is true, although there have been exceptions. It quotes Marx and Engels to this effect, so it is not a criticism of Lenin for departing from Marxism. Nor is it a criticism on grounds of dishonesty, without a Communist claim to the contrary. So what's the point? Septentrionalis15:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I have improved the text somewhat "Some communist supporters argue that the Communist states were not communist since they were not democratic. However, Marx and Engels rejected the concept of liberal democracy. They gave few hints and had no explicit requirements regarding how the dictatorship of the proletariat or the later communist society should be implemented. Some argue that Marx and Engels may have supported the claimed direct democracy of the Paris Commune as a model for transition to communism. Others dispute this [64] and there were human rights violations even during the few months the Commune existed [65]. Engels stated that "A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?" [66] and "the proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries". Lenin later used cited these and other statements by Marx and Engels as support for the authoritarian principles of vanguard party and "democratic centralism" during the dictatorship of the proletariat. This excluded democracy even in theory outside the ruling Communist party [67]. When the Marxists only gained a minority vote in the democratic Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917, Lenin dispersed the Constituent Assembly at the end of its first day's session and overturned the election. That all the Communist states became and remained totalitarian as long as the Communists remained in power can be seen as an argument against communism."
No Communist state ever claimed to be communist; read the header of the article for the distinction being made by the capital letter. In fact, their chief and usual excuse was that they were - like Jack Benny - working on it. What was said repeatedly by Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev and Mao can hardly be a criticism of Communism. I have included this explanation, and the resulting criticism under the section in the article called "20th century Communist states". Please read it, and then put here - in one sentence - what it is you are asserting.
I cannot tell, from Ultramarine's paragraph, what all his words are trying to prove. If I can't, readers won't be able to either. (If he can't put the point of a paragraph in a single sentence, it needs to be rethought anyway.) Septentrionalis19:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Your point was already included in the prior paragraph. I have done some reorganization See [68].
This is not responsive. Please state the point of your paragraph in a single sentence. It is so confusing that I cannot propose one. If the man who wrote it can't either, the odds are readers won't. (If you need to recast it to see what it means, do it in your sandbox; please don't revert the text, it will only be rereverted. Septentrionalis19:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill
"The capitalist economists of his time, such as David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, agreed with most of these predictions, at least as the most likely forecast of events."
Hmm... You are arguing using Ricardo's Iron law of wages. This only claims that the conditions will be the same for workers, not that they will get steadily worse or that all workers will become assembly line workers. Nor does it state that the capitalists must get richer, fewer, and become increasingly authoritarian monopolists. Nor that there must be a revolution. Mill rejected the law [69]. Ultramarine20:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I think what we have now is quite sufficient since there is no agreement on many issues for the moment. If you want to find more differences, you can check yourself. Ultramarine00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Please discuss portions of version U above this point.
This is the second time that you have edited my discussion comments. Including falsely using my signature.
I did not edit your comment. Not a jot nor tittle was changed. I moved it to where it could be more conveniently discussed. It is now (identically) in both places. Septentrionalis17:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, I see no other factual inaccuracy in the article. Whether this is one, the two of you will have to settle. Septentrionalis15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you show me how you reached that page - that is, how you can request such comparisons of exports and other things from the FAO website? I'm asking because I want to look more closely into this matter. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Mihnea, you deleted the following text from the section on the LTV:
Critics of Marxism hold that the qualifier socially necessary is not well-defined, and conceals a subjective judgment of necessity. They also hold that market prices are in fact objectively determinable: the market price of a widget can be discovered by attempting to buy one.
The purpose of that section in this article is to discuss criticisms of the LTV. I believe this text includes major criticisms which are actually made. (Even if Marxists dismiss them as confusion, which should be added if true.) Please explain. Septentrionalis22:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
On closer inspection, I see that the first sentence does indeed state a real objection. I removed the paragraph due to the second one, however, which misrepresents both sides of the argument. The Marxists distinguish between use-value (which is objective, constant, and depends on the amount of socially necessary labor) and exchange-value (which is the market price). This is explained in Capital volume 1. The supporters of the STV, for their part, argue that "objective" value simply does not exist, and that the only real value of an object is its price on the market. I have no idea what the statement that "market prices are in fact objectively determinable" is supposed to refer to... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu23:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
That the question "What is the market price of a widget?" is answerable by independently replicable experiment. This is the sense of 'objective' I am accustomed to; but I have no objection to a rephrasing. I found the reversal neat. Septentrionalis16:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
But if it can be answered, replicably, then market prices are a proper subject for the scientific method. Calling them "subjective" does tend to imply that they are not. Restoring first sentence, btw. Septentrionalis18:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Capitalist economists call the theory the "utility theory" of value. Could we substitute this name, and then add reproducibility?Septentrionalis21:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, a full name would be marginal utility theory of value, but it's often shortened to just marginal theory of value or marginalism. "Subjective theory of value" is another name given by its proponents, to distinguish it from all the objective theories of value (the LTV isn't the only one). I'll just change its name in this article to "marginal theory of value", and then we'll no longer need that confusing disclaimer about objective measurement. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu10:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
(reverting to full size) I believe there is a distinction here.
The capitalist economists changed (c. 1870, IIRC) to the utility theory of value which implies that the only "value" meaningful to everybody is market value.
Marginalism is a later refinement on this, dealing with how market functions in deciding any individual price.
See Russell's History of Western Philosophy, chapter on Marx. But the criticisms in Socially necessary labour time are sufficient to establish that LTV has been criticized for not defining its terms well. What criticisms of LTV were you planning to include, btw? Septentrionalis16:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
My error; make that the chapter on Locke's politics (Pp. 634-636, Simon and Schuster pb.). I would add the following, where appropriate:
Bertrand Russell argues that the labor theory, while a reasonable approximation to an agrarian society, is neither accurate nor normative for an advanced industrialism, whatever its economic arrangements. A piece of desert land will in fact become valuble if it is found to lie over an oil deposit, before a stroke of work is done on it. As an ethic, the labor theory provides a useful polemic against a "predatory" group, like moneylenders or capitalists; but it does not indicate any fair proportion between the earnings of two workers at different stands on the same assembly line.
I my view, the dust needs to settle over the war between some contributors before even thinking of making this a featured article. It's the kind of subject matter that contributors need to have a rest from, then return with fresh eyes.
Just a trivial, but irritating, point: why is 'Communism' and related words spelt with an upper-case C?
To distinguish the proper name, "Communist Party", and institutions related to it (which have C) from the doctrine, ideal condition, or general tendency "communism". Few of these criticisms apply to Peter Kropotkin or William Morris. (Capitalizing "State" is traditional in the Left, including the non-Communist Left.) Septentrionalis18:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
And can we remove statements such as 'This has been criticized ...'; by whom it never says, and why not just present the facts. The readers can draw their own conclusions.
I concur in general. However, the fact of criticism is what demonstrates that a particular subject is on-topic, in this article. Septentrionalis18:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
In which case, we need to know who is criticising in each case, either by brief reference in the wording, or a footnote. Otherwise, the text loses credibility.
Tony13:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I see; Ultramarine's edit summary was incorrect: he did correct one misspelling, and add one word, while revising the 2V tag; it was the reversion beforehand that was identical. I regret the minimal misapprehension. Septentrionalis16:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Consolidated version
The consolidated version now contains everything common to version M and U; it contains substantially everything that was in either version, and which two editors have not deprecated. (In particular, it does not contain the disputed comparison between France and Hungary.)
A single editor reverting to version U, or any edit which differs from it by a few sentences, will involve, therefore:
Massive, unjustified, deletions.
insertion of material which two editors have separately removed.
For the avowed purpose of making this article a criticism of communism, rather than a discussion of such criticisms.
Any of these would be sufficient grounds for re-reversion.
In addition, such reversions restore the critics say... Supporters say... style, which has been justly condemned above.
I do wish Ultramarine would stop shooting himself in the foot with these silly reversions, which waste everybody's time. Edits to the consolidated version are welcome, and will be viewed on their merits. They may well stay; no-one contends the present version is flawless. Septentrionalis16:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an incorrect and misleading description. See the previous discussion above. There are also many other documented facts in the more critical version that are not mentioned in the other version. Ultramarine16:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Misleading descriptions
This is itself a misleading description, as are Ultramarine's edit summaries. Ultramarine's versions have been changing by a word or a sentence between times; for example, his latest version differs from his earlier ones by:
a claim by Ukraina that Stalin's agricultural policies were genocide,
and a generality about the opening of Communist archives
I would welcome both in the consolidated version if he cares to add them; although the first seems incomplete - Stalin was willing to starve peasants of any nationality.
Aside from this handful of new sentences, I believe everything in U has either been added to the consolidated version or objected to above. Septentrionalis18:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
This is again incorrect, here are some of the changes and added facts that are not covered in the discussion above [72]. I have not yet added them to the discussion, because, as I have noted previously, most of the past discussions are still not resolved. Ultramarine18:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I have read both versions, and while there are substantive differences, I just don't see the vast divide that a twoversion tag suggests. Robert A West18:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Several editors are violating the two-version templates by reverting to the less critical version. The more critical version was the first to use the template, thus it should not be reverted without consensus. In addition, they even refuse to update the template to the latest version of the more critical version when they revert. Are they afraid to let others see the content and arguments? Explain. Ultramarine19:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Being the first to use the two-version template does not grant you immunity from reversion. If it did, then a user could do the following:
Write an extremely biased and/or inaccurate version of an article.
After that version gets reverted once, re-revert and insert the 2V template.
Refuse to engage in any meaningful discussion on the Talk page and use the 2V template as an excuse to keep the biased and/or inaccurate version on top forever.
Incidentally, this is precisely what you are trying to do. For a while you agreed to discuss and debate, and we agreed to insert many of your points and arguments into our version. Thus, the two versions of the article are now (1) a collaboration by several users, including yourself (aka the "less critical version"), and (2) your pet article, which is absurdly biased (aka the "more critical version"). The rule of consensus cannot be used to give one POV-pusher the power to impose his will on all other editors. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu19:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
This is incorrect. I have incorporated many of your points in my version and as you have done in yours. However, we now see to have reached a deadlock where you simply refuse to correct obvious npov violations like mentioning continuing environmental problems in Russia while refusing to mention environmental improvements in Eastern Europe. See earlier discussion. Therefore, the importance of the two-version.
No, you have not. Your version is absurdly biased, Ultramarine, and everyone but you seems to notice that. Your version is the wiki equivalent of a show trial. You intentionally reduce all pro-communist arguments to easily refuted straw men. Just listing all the NPOV violations in your version would take hours, and I sincerely doubt it would have any effect on you anyway. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, why are some of you refusing to update the two-version template to the latest version of the more critical version? Are you afraid to let others see the content and arguments? This criticsm does not include Mihnea Tudoreanu, who has also often been constructive in the above debate before the deadlock. Ultramarine20:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
These are the diffs between the recent forms of Ultramarine's private version:
None of them has added more than a few sentences - one is exact. I see no real difference in the arguments. I find all of them about equally formidable. Septentrionalis12:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
The difference
There are two versions of this article at the present time: One is a collaboration, the other is Ultramarine's pet. The single largest difference between them is that the collaboration is the result of editing efforts by several users, including Ultramarine himself. He has brought several objections to the content of the collaboration version. Some of those objections have been resolved, others are still in discussion. On the other hand, Ultramarine's pet article is the work of no one but Ultramarine himself, and there are a multitude of objections that other users could bring to it - starting from the intro, which blatantly censors a piece of information that is present in the collaboration version. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:13, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, this is incorrect. I have made numerous changes due to the earlier discussion, before the above mentioned deadlock. I have also continually incorporated text and arguments from the less critical version without discussion. Ultramarine20:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
That's just the thing: You incorporated bits and pieces from the collaboration version, and rewrote them in ways you saw fit. Your version is yours and yours alone. Here's my suggestion for breaking the deadlock: Rather than reverting to your pet article all the time, edit the collaboration version to show us exactly what you have in mind. It's much easier to work that way. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
To be more precise, there are three classes of differences:
There is a great deal of material in the collaborative version, which Ultramarine has never disputed, but nonetheless deletes with each of his reversions.
There are some sentences which Ultramarine has added to his private version since the beginning of August, which he should be bold enough to put into the collaborative version, such as the Ukraina claims of genocide; it's not our business to track them down and put them in. They will be edited mercilessly, as is policy, but lots would stay; I would defend Ukraina's presence myself.
There are the points listed under #List of proposed changes above. Most of these have been resolved, or nearly resolved, by consensus; but some disputes remain, like whether the improvement of pollution in Cracow since 1994 is on-topic in this article.
On that dispute, for example, I have stated my position; I have read his; we disagree. There are recognized methods of dispute resolution: The easiest of these is the presentation of new arguments, evidence, or compromise proposals. The rest are mostly ways of getting the views of experienced editors, which are evidence that there's some weight to the views they support.
As I see it, there are two version: Ultramarine's and a collaborative version, to which Ultramarine has contributed extensively. The 2V tag was intended for temporary use only, and is tolerated only on the understanding that its use will be transient, while people seek out consensus. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/May 2005#Template:Twoversions. At this point, the two-version tag seems to be doing more harm than good. I propose to remove the two-version tag, keep the collaborative version as the only version, and actively encourage Ultramarine to participate in improving it.
Votes
Please vote agree or oppose and sign with ~~~~ below. I propose that 75% be considered consensus.
Agree As the list of disagreements above shows, the points of dispute are far fewer than the differences between the two versions seem to indicate. If you must revert anything, Ultramarine, please edit and revert only the paragraphs disputed above. Mihnea Tudoreanu20:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I can see no mention of it being temporary. A poll in this case is meaningless, Wikipedia requires consensus. I suggest mediation, instead of trying to force a removal of much of the criticisms of communism without debate. Ultramarine20:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree with mediation. I also agree with removing the 2V template, if only to encourage you to work within the collaborative version (something you rarely, if ever, seem to do). If you want to add something, then why don't you just add it to the collaborative version? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I assert consensus has already been reached: A poll is about the only method of measuring that assertion. There is a consensus on Wikipedia that 75% support strongly indicates a consensus. Frankly, I will be surprised if anyone but Ultramarine opposes. Robert A West21:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Again, Wikipdia require consensus in cases like this. Please do not again violate policy. Debate, do not simply delete arguments you do not like. By the way, I added some new arguments above. Ultramarine21:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Unless you misunderstand "consensus" as meaning "unanimity" (it doesn't), I am not sure what to make of your comment. What policy do you claim I have violated wrt this page? Please be specific. Robert A West21:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if anyone violated policy there, it was you. The fact that the collaborative version had been worked on by multiple editors for some time as the "A" version of the 2V manifestly establishes that was the consensus. Your revert was improper, and I properly reverted, as did Minhea. Robert A West21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
More on consensus from your link "In article disputes, consensus is used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides of a back-and-forth revert war claiming a consensus for their version of the article.
This is deprecated behavior. You are the one using "consensus" to mean "your way". Again, I assert that consensus is manifest, and this poll is intended to demonstrate that. Robert A West21:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.)
Can you not see your face in the mirror when you read the above paragraph? You are the one not acting in good faith. You are the one adopting an imperious tone of do-it-this-way-or-else. You are the one who repeatedly tries to insert pictures of dubious connection. Robert A West21:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Specifying exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position is difficult. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own are also reasonable. But Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities.
Again, I could not have said it better. There is a fine line between accurately reporting the criticisms of communist states (and it has been often noted that their conduct strayed far from anything Marx envisioned), and writing an article in condemnation. Many of your proposed edits cross it, and your protestations of NPOV do not hide that fact. Other edits do not, which is why people want you to stay involved. But. you seem to have a problem admitting the rationality of positions to which you are opposed, and seem to have trouble recognizing balance when you see it. Please take this paragraph to heart. Robert A West21:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing." Ultramarine21:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
If you have some magical method of actually measuring NPOV, then please, let us see it. So far it has been your word against ours (or rather, your word against the word of everyone else who looked over the article and the dispute). But I guess you think this is all one giant communist conspiracy to prevent your holy Truth from being rightfully proclaimed by wikipedia, don't you? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu08:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
At some point, as a practical matter, a decision has to be made on what is and is not NPOV as regards a particular article. The Wikipedia method is that if there is consensus that NPOV has been reached, or approximated as closely as we are going to get, that is the end of the story. Wikifaith holds that failures of this method will not go undiscovered. You are bright and energetic. A little intellectual discipline and collegiality would go far. Robert A West22:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
If you try to remove the two version template without consensus, without trying to debate with arguments as I do above, and without trying mediation, then I will have to ask for page protection to prevent the edit war which the two-version template has as a purpose to prevent. Ultramarine22:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Please consider for 24 hours before you commit yourself to this, which borders upon abusing policy to win an edit war. The two of us have requested mediation twice, and if anything comes of those requests, I am certainly still willing to submit to mediation. For what it's worth, I support the continued presence of the NPoV tag; there clearly is a dispute, and I am not sure I see the present text clearly after this long discussion. Septentrionalis22:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a strange description. If you remove the two-version template then it is you who "borders upon abusing policy to win an edit war.". Or rather, who abuses policy in order to remove critical arguments. Instead, let others see them and use factual arguments. Is there something dangerous about letting others read them and form their own opinion? Ultramarine23:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Your threat is irrelevant: No one is proposing to remove the tag without consensus. The poll exists to measure my belief that a consensus already exists. So far, the results support that conclusion, but we need to give this some more time. Robert A West23:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Conclusion
As I understand matters, the use of the "two-versions" template is not subject to any specific policy. (The policy/guideline proposal never jelled and is now inactive.) In fact, the TfD discussion shows slightly over 25% support for deletion of the template. Nevertheless, an editor (Ultramarine) has requested that two versions remain until there is consensus that it be removed, and this request should be respected.
As appeared manifest from the previous discussion, three editors are not happy with the two-versions template, and one is. The likelihood that any other editor actually cares seems very slim. The three agree that two versions is causing conflict that could probably be lessened if Ultramarine joined in editing the "Collaborative Version" rather than engaging in a revert war.
As has been pointed out, consensus is not the same as unanimity. All editors but one concur. Accordingly, I am removing the two-versions tag, and requesting that it not be replaced. Robert A West19:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
You are refusing to discuss the facts above, you are removing well-documented referenced statements, and you are removing the template without consensus. Instead, let others see the arguments and use factual arguments yourself. Is there something dangerous about letting others read the arguments and form their own opinion? Ultramarine19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed nothing. The consensus is that we are better off working from one version, to which you are free to add any and all well-documented arguments from "your" version. It makes more sense to work from the three-person version than the one-person version. Robert A West21:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, we have discussed every point Ultramarine has brought up, until this talk page is 151K. We have given ground on almost all of them, and yielded completely on some. The remaining ground is actively disputed by at least one user — often by two or three &madsh; as PoV, off topic, or unencyclopedic.
If "removal" refers to the dozen or score of sentences Ultramarine has added to his private version in August, I continue to hold that he should be both bold and collegial enough to add them to the collaborative version.
In short, we are not censoring Ultramarine, we merely disagree with him. (Failure to distinguish these two states is a frequent criticism of Communism; let me go see if it's in the article.) Septentrionalis23:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Past vs Present Tense
It seems to me that the use of the past tense in the Censorship section is inappropriate. North Korean censorship, suppression of dissent, and suppression of emigration are well-documented. Castro is less heavy-handed, but I think that the accusation is well-sourced there as well. I have had to rely on memory for sources, but I believe that I am correct. Do we need more specific citations than are given?
(Yes, I know that Frontline is journalism, not peer-reviewed research, but it is careful journalism, and few people would charge that PBS has a right-wing bias.)
Some editors are now without consensus remove the Two-version template, the Factual inaccuracy template and refusing further factual discussions. Please see the history of the page. Ultramarine22:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Once more, with feeling. The 2V template was taken off per consensus, please do not put it back. The NPOV disputes are substantial, but the remaining factual disputes are relatively few and minor -- far less than the totally-disputed tag would lead a reader to believe. If anyone other than Ultramarine thinks the totally-disputed tag is not massive overkill, please put it in, or let me know, and I will put it back or make sure not to take it out. Robert A West15:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Summary of open issues
This section is an attempted summary/refactoring of the current status of disputes. Each of the above sections is full of comments relating to text that has been changed, and therefore of no immediate relevance. Once we complete this survey of where we stand, I am hopeful that we can archive the rather lengthy discussion, and so make this talk page a useful tool again.
Since I (for one) have limited time, I would appreciate if Ultramarine would identify a priority order.
In some cases, I cannot summarize Ultramarine's position, because all he has done is insist on a congeries of statements, some of them very vague, which do not seem to hang together at all well. There must be a connecting thread which is obvious to him, but is not obvious to me, or I think to the reader.
In some cases, I think the sense to be:
The Communists are hypocrites
The Communists claimed the Soviet Union was the perfect stateless/ classless/ peaceable/democratic/etc. society, the secular Millenium
But it was tyrannical/exploited/warlike/dictatorial/ etc.
This is a guess, however. If this is his meaning, I would reply:
The Communists explicitly and repeatedly claimed that
"communism" was not here, although it would be in the foreseeable future
Therefore the first assertion is in general false:
The sedond is usually covered.
But the article could probably use some Orwell.
I will denote these by a reference to this section, and the virtue.
Resolved Sections
I infer by "Resolved" that all of us agree that these sections are factual and NPOV as they stand. Further improvements should be in the realm of ordinary editing.
I can identify no meaningful factual dispute. Ultramarine remains unsatisfied as to NPOV, though he approved language on the Caspian and the Aral that seems to meet his original objections. I would appreciate it if he could clarify. 16:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Got logged off -- sig added. Robert A West17:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The PoV dispute appears to be: the present text notes that much of the formerly Communist countries is still polluted, some of it worse.
Ultramarine wishes to include extensive text pointing out improvements.
I think that this is exactly the line where the discussion wanders off topic, since I hold that "Communism wasn't so bad, because of how polluted Bucharest is now!" is almost certainly an existing counter-criticism, but that "Communism was dreadful, because of how much Cracow has improved since 1994!" is incredible. Septentrionalis18:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
A complex argument, requiring multiple predicates, could be made. Whether Ultramarine intends and has sources for this, perhaps he can best clarify. This strikes me as a genuine difference of editorial opinion, but not a factual dispute, per se. Robert A West21:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine wants a version that Minhea and Septentrionalis oppose on NPOV grounds. Presumably, Ultramarine considers only his version NPOV. 208.20.251.27 16:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Got logged off again -- sig added. Robert A West17:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Your summary is incorrect. I refer to the complete discussions above in "List of proposed changes". If you want to add something, do it there. Are you Robert A West? If so, please use your signature. Ultramarine16:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I got logged off during the save again <groan> and twice we have edit-conflicted while I tried to correct the sigs. (Murphy strikes!) My summary is in good faith -- if mistaken, it is evidence that the complete discussion has become hard to follow. Please summarize what your current objections are to each section. Robert A West16:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
You have are right that the previous "List of proposed changes" has become convoluted. I have created another below.Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Environment
Your version states:
"However, many of these ecological problems continued unabated after the fall of the Soviet Union and are still major issues today - which has prompted many supporters of communist states to accuse their opponents of holding a double standard."
NPOV requires mentioning:
"The environmental situation has continued to be poor in some post-Communist states, like Russia, but has improved in others, like in many of the Eastern European and the Baltic states [75][76][77]."
In my judgment, these two statements fall on opposite sides of the edge of the topic. I do not believe that anyone uses criticisms of the form, "Communism was dreadful, because the Volga has been cleaned up since 1994." I find it plausible that arguments of the form: "Communism wasn't so bad; because Bucharest's air is worse than ever" are rather common. If either of these is shown to be wrong, I will change my position. Septentrionalis20:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you miss Ultramarine's point. Try this paragraph.
However, many of these ecological problems continued unabated after the fall of the Soviet Union and are still major issues today - which has prompted many supporters of communist states to accuse their opponents of holding a double standard. On the other hand, the U.S. Department of Energy found substantial improvements in Poland[78] and a study[79] at Tufts University found a general improvement in the cities of Eastern Europe, dating from the political changes of 1989.
I omit the third reference, since it seems a little off topic, and two is more than enough to establish the point, IMO. Robert A West22:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is the UN Environment Network environmental country profiles: [80] and UN Economic Commission for Europe: [81]. The environmental situation has improved in every former Communist state, including Ukraine and Belarus. Here is another report showing environmental improvement in Russia [82]. (Note also that GDP/capita is now rapidly rising after the earlier drastic decline in Russia [83])Ultramarine11:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
This comment makes clear what Ultramarine has never understood: this was never an accuracy dispute, it was a topicality dispute. Robert West has addressed the real issue, and I am, as I said, half-persuaded.
Two weeks later, there is still no referenced evidence supporting their version. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. Ultramarine23:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Vistula
Your version also excludes " Many of the rivers were polluted; several, like the Vistula and Oder rivers in Poland, were virtually ecologically dead." Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
The first clause is obvious from what has already been said in the lengthy paragraph on this subject, which Ultramarine proposed; the second is weaselworded. This sentence would weaken the article, which is already 32K. I will not include it; on the other hand, if Ultramarine is bold enough to include it, with a source, in the collaborative version, I will not immediately revert it. Septentrionalis20:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence is largely redundant: could anyone read the existing paragraph and have any doubt on the subject? Nevertheless, I don't follow your complaint of weasel-wording? Robert A West17:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
An ecology of petroleum-eating bacteria (for example) remains an ecology, but it is not the sort of ecology one wants or expects of a river. I see no problem on that score. Robert A West23:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
But the phrasing is both alarmist and vague: I have lived by a river which went back to jellyfish, and I remember the reports that fish were present again, even if not edible, in the lower Hudson - I think this was after the fall of Communism; where, relative to these, does the Vistula fall? I do not see Ultramarine's source in the page history or I would see what it actually said. (I have found a general article on the ecology of Poland; it notes eutrophication and severe salinity problems, but does not suggest ecological death [84]) The Vistula is clearly in a bad way; but if we're going to say anything on it, we should say how bad, and have a source.Septentrionalis17:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
From the link in my version which you can reach through the Two-versoin template. "Direct and indirect pollution of surface water resulted in the poisoning of lakes and rivers in Eastern Europe through acid deposition from refineries, mining operations, and other industrial activities. In Poland, both the Vistula and Oder rivers are virtually ecologically dead as a result of pollution from mining operations in Silesia." [85]. Ultramarine13:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine is relying upon obiter dictum from a paper on Cuba by two Latin Americanists, for his entire paragraph, which he has cut and pasted - again. They have misstated the geography of Poland; I must wonder if they have correctly summarized its ecology. Septentrionalis15:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
The paper has several pages about the environmental problems in the Communist states and gives numerous sources for all statements regarding this. Vistula, Oder, and Silesia can be found in Poland. Ultramarine06:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
The pollution reached Vistula in other ways. "From its western side Cracow adjoins the Upper Silesian Industrial Region, the biggest industrial centre of Poland. The works of Upper Silesia emit thousands of tones of gases and dust, that subsequently go in the direction of Cracow. The more the emission is, the easier they force their way through the barrier of hills, dropping then gradually or being rinsed by rainfall." "Exceptionally high content of cadmium compounds in Cracow's environment has already been announced by the Puławy Institute. Their concentration has been observed in the milk of nursing women. Supposably, the source of cadmium contamination in our city are Silesian zinc works, for its higher level has been observed from western and north western side. Cadmium always accompanies zinc ores and its easy volatility is conductive to liberation during the process of thermal metallurgic treatment of the ores." "High salinity of the Vistula River should be stressed as well, the reason of which are the Silesian coal mines. Thousands of tones of sodium chloride from the Vistula exert their unfavourable influence on the water biocenosis and human system are in a particular danger."[86].
That looks like a much better source, and should probably be cited in preference to your first. Your paragraph above states that the Oder and Vistula are still ecologically dead. (1) Is this what you mean to say? (2) Can we find a more precise wording? Robert A West07:24, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
It is not a better source for general environmental problems in the Communist states. It is a source showing that you are incorrect regarding the connection between Vistula and Silesia. Ultramarine01:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
The only problem I would have with:
The Vistula was poisoned with mining spoil, agricultural runoff, and sewage; its fish were inedible, its waters green with algae; much of its water was useless for man or beast. [87]
is that it is too long for the present paragraph. But since that will have to be recast anyway, if only to acknowledge direct quotation, that should not be a problem. Septentrionalis20:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
You have not shown that my source regarding the general environmental problems and the environmental problems in the rivers in the Communist states is inaccurate. Therefore, you have no reason for not including the statement as presented in my version. Ultramarine15:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do: it's imprecise, ambiguous, ill-sourced, and tendentious. I have suggested a precise, well-sourced, apparently accurate, and vivid text above, and I still prefer it. Septentrionalis13:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Your source only mentions one river, my many. Thus my source is better regarding general environmental problems in the Communist states. I see no reason to not mention these problems. Ultramarine23:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Technology
Your version is incorrect:
"Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven, in the sense that some sectors surged ahead while others lagged behind. As noted above, the Soviet space program saw remarkable progress, and so did pure science and military technology, in all Communist states. Consumer products, on the other hand, were typically several years behind their Western counterparts. According to the CIA[88], a number of Soviet products were in fact using Western technology, which had been either legally purchased or obtained through espionage. This situation has been largely attributed to the fact that economic planners in the Soviet Union and elsewhere were accountable to the government, but, in the absence of democracy, they were not accountable to the people. Thus, their plans tended to focus on long-term goals and scientific and military development, rather than the short-term needs of the population."
Short-term should be "immediate", but what incorrectness do you allege? Septentrionalis
Your claim of remarkable progress in the Soviet Space programs. Correct, but pov to not include that it often lagged. Your claim that all Communist states saw remarkable progress in military technology. Factually incorrect regarding for example Kampuchea. Again pov to not mention that military technology usually lagged, see my source. Also pov to only mention consumer goods, when much military technology also come from espionage. Ultramarine09:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
My version with sources:
"Soviet technology generally lagged Western technology by many years. Exceptions include areas like the Soviet space program and military technology where occasionally [89] the Communist technology was more advanced due to a massive concentration of research resources. According to the CIA, much of the technology in the Communist states consisted simply of copies of Western products that had been legally purchased or gained through a massive espionage program. Stricter Western control of the export of technology through COCOM contributed to the fall of Communism [90]."Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we need to be careful of leaving the reader with the cliché picture of clumsy scientists' slavishly producing copies. I believe that the consensus of American scientists and engineers is that, given the paucity of resources and continual bureaucratic interference, their Soviet counterparts did a remarkable job. If anyone disagrees, I can hunt down sources. As an example, I recall an article in SciAm describing the use of ultra-compact vacuum tubes that were initially laughed at, then caused concern that the technology might have been chosen for being EMP-hard.
Yes, give sources for your claims, otherwise correct to NPOV and the factual inaccuracies, as described above. Please note that ultra-compact vacuum tubes for use in war do not say anything about Communist technology in general, you need a more general source for that. My text already states that military technology occasionally was more advanced. Note that my first source states that military technology "was unable to keep pace with the accelerating technological innovation in the NATO countries". Ultramarine04:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I think he means the claim of remarkable progress in the space program without noting that it "lagged", which is really a POV issue, as he notes. His "correction" also has POV problems. Was the Moon Landing really more technologically significant than Mir? Brezhnev claimed that the "race to the moon" was a western invention, and that the Soviet program simply had different goals. Books have been written on both sides of that debate, and it is not obvious to me how to boil it down to a sentence or two. 208.20.251.2718:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC) Got logged of in mid-edit again. 18:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
As I said, it will take me some time to hunt down sources that I read a quarter-century ago. I don't think we need to hold anything up while I look. Robert A West18:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Two weeks later, there is still no referenced evidence supporting their version. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. Ultramarine23:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Science
Your version is incorrect: "As noted above, the Soviet space program saw remarkable progress, and so did pure science and military technology, in all Communist states."
My version with source:
"Although the Communist states often emphasized the importance of the "hard sciences", comparatively few advances were made in them. For example, there were very few Nobel prize winners from Communist states [91]."
I congratulate Ultramarine on finding what must be one of the few sites on this subject to omit the Soviet Union. Presumably, since this appears to be primarily a site of economic statistics by country, they threw out all Soviet statistics as lies - a perfectly rational decision. Nevertheless, even Wikipedia's strikingly incomplete list of Nobel Prize Laureates by Country would have shown the omission. I cannot agree to the inclusion of this passage with this source; it would be academic fraud. Septentrionalis20:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Hm. You are right about that source. I changed to another one. See figure 2 in the link above. Compare for example the US, 250 million people in 1989, with the whole of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, 400 million people. Ultramarine16:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This source does not contain actual figures; I will go find one. I see no reason why Ultramarine's first source [92] should be dropped down the memory hole, however. Septentrionalis19:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Two weeks later, there is still no referenced evidence supporting their version. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. Ultramarine23:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention that your version includes in another place "Censorship of science. One example is censorship and revisionism of history. In the Soviet Union, between the late 1920s and early 1960s, research was suppressed in biology and genetics (Lysenkoism), linguistics (Japhetic theory), cybernetics, psychology and psychiatry, and even organic chemistry."Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
What's Ultramarine's problem with this sentence? I would think the dates could be tightened to be more like 1932-1958; but that's my only complaint.Septentrionalis20:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Note that Septentrionalis has here misleadingly edited my text and split my original paragraph into two. See this diff [93]. The removes the connection with the claim that the pure sciences saw remarkable progress in all Communist states. Ultramarine08:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
This article is about the Communist states and is obviously not the place to list for example the human rights violation of Nazi Germany. I propose changing the first sentence of the last paragraph of the human rights section to this: "Some supporters of communism find this approach simplistic, noting that humans rights violations such as executions, forced labor camps, the repression of ethnic minorities, and mass starvation were patterns in both non-democratic Russian and Chinese history before their respective Communist takeovers, and that later the opposing capitalist states also committed some human rights violations, like state terrorism" Ultramarine15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
In practical logic, nearly all criticisms are relative criticisms. You have to show either that someone else who was similarly-situated did better, or that the problem exposes a contradiction. Even then, since all real-world systems have contradictions, one has to show that the contradiction is especially bad. Robert A West05:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Crimes are not relative. Crimes by other persons cannot justify new crimes, but maybe put them into perspective, as already stated in the article. The support for terrorism should be mentioned, and we have a paragraph for the perspective. Wikpedia should not hide arguments. Ultramarine15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
There were human rights violation before the Communists in Communist states
Your version excludes:
"However, this defense can also be criticized. Alexander Solzhenitsyn argues in his book Gulag Archipelago that the living conditions and death rates of the inmates in the Soviet era Gulags were much worse than those of the Tsarist era Katorgas. The worst crop failure of late Tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths, while famines under both Lenin and Stalin caused many millions of deaths [95]."Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
This is neither violent advocacy, nor actively misleading. A great improvement over prior texts on the subject. "Many" millions is simply wrong for the Russian famine of 1921, and the 1931 famine has been mentioned, so part of this is redundant. Septentrionalis22:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Most sources give 5 million deaths for famine during Lenin's regime [96] and a similar number for famine during Stalin's regime [97]. I see no reason for excluding the last sentence. Ultramarine04:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course it does; it is not Wikipedia's business to do for the reader what she can do for herself; see Wikipedia:external links.
This may be valid, although I do not think that it can be easily found if one does not know of its existence, However, I can accept removing this. Ultramarine16:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
My version only has one book reference from Rummel, the others two are not specifically about Communist states. Three of the links goes to graphs and tables. There are only two links that goes to actual textual articles. Anyhow, Rummel is the only scholar who has the details of his research available on the net. Therefore, they are very significant links. What policy are you referring to when you want remove very relevant external links? Ultramarine08:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Your version excludes important arguments:
"Some, such as Karl Popper and others, have also argued that Historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Marxists respond that social sciences in general are largely not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via experiments (in the way hard science can be tested)."
My version:
"Marxism does not claim be to a science, however Historical materialism does. Karl Popper and others have argued that Historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Marxists respond that social sciences in general are largely not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via experiments (in the way hard science can be tested). One response is that many of the social sciences like psychology, economics, and political science are increasingly being tested, for example by statistical methods. Another that the same argument could be applied to other ideologies like capitalism or fascism, in the same way making it impossible to prove that they are wrong." Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I will make this simpler than Mihnea did.
Ultramarine's text is worse written
Much of the difference is off topic original research
The last sentence is, among other things, an assertion that classical economics is a pseudo-science. While I am often tempted to agree with this, it is a PoV. Septentrionalis23:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Hm.. I have somewhat modified my version:
"Marxism does not claim be to a science. However, historical materialism does. Karl Popper and others have argued that historical materialism is a pseudoscience because it is not falsifiable. Marxists respond that some social sciences are not falsifiable, since it is often difficult or outright impossible to test them via experiments (in the way hard science can be tested). This is especially true when many people and a long time is involved. Popper agreed on this, but instead used it as an argument against central planning and all ideologies that claim to know the future." Ultramarine07:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine's last sentence is largely redundant with his third, but the sentence on Popper should include a reference to historicism. Septentrionalis
If the last sentence of Ultramarine's new draft does not refer to Popper's condemnation of "historicism", he had better recast it anyway, as misleading. Septentrionalis17:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is my proposal "Popper agreed on this, but instead in his criticism of historicism and defense of the open society used it as an argument against central planning and all ideologies that claim to know the future [98]." Ultramarine13:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
East Germany was less developed than West Germany when Germany split
Your version:
"No two countries are identical; the western parts of Germany were more developed and industrialized than the eastern parts long before the Cold War and the creation of two separate German states, and Cuba was likewise more developed than many of its Central American neighbors before the Cuban revolution."
Doubtful. "In the early decades of the 20th century, Berlin was the leading industrial city in Europe." East Germany got half of this. West Berlin was of little use to West Germany due to its isolation caused by the Communist states which built the Berlin Wall and sometimes blocked all land transport. West Berlin was instead a liability for West Germany. ""But only heavily subsidized industry stayed within the city, creating an artificially upheld industrial economy with very little increase in value. Altogether, more than half of the city’s revenues were direct subsidies from the West German government in 1989." [99]. East Germany also gained Saxony which was considered the technology center of Central Europe before WWII [100]. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica also agrees that Saxony was an import industrial center.
On the other hand, you have this source which states "Before World War II, the area that later became East Germany was not well developed industrially. Because this area lacked raw materials, heavy industry was generally located in other parts of the German state." [101]." In the mid-1930s, it shipped almost half of its total production to the other parts of Germany. In return it obtained a slightly larger percentage share of its total economic needs from the same territories. This domestic trade featured sales of agricultural products; textiles; products of light industry, such as cameras, typewriters, and optical equipment; and purchases of industrial goods and equipment. In addition, a substantial share of the production from the area was shipped abroad in those years, and additional goods were received in return." [102]. You have suggested that the differences between the souces can be explained by that East Germany had more light industry while West ´Germany had more more heavy industry, which seems plausible. However, I argue that light industry should also count as development, although of course the Communist states often disagreed and preferred heavy industry in order to make weapons instead of consumer goods.". Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
No. I affirm, with the Dept. of State, that East Germany was less developed than West Germany. The distinction between light and heavy industry was an effort to explain to Ultramarine how the sources are in fact consistent. Septentrionalis20:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Both your source on heavy industry and my about Saxony is the Department of Army. I have also listed several other sources, like the 1911 EB. Again, technology and light industry like optical equipment is not inferior to heavy industry like steel mills. Ultramarine16:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine misreads his sources and my general comment above. No inaccuracy in the text has been proved or suggested. The 1911 EB mentions few industries in the future EGermany, and those confined to one of the three pieces of Saxony and to Berlin, of which only one-third fell to E. Germany. Septentrionalis13:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
As noted above, I disagree. In addition, WWII and the massive allied bombings meant that much of the industrial infrastructure and many of the cities were destroyed, making it impossible to know which side was more developed at the end of the war.
This is, if relevant, another argument supporting the claim of the present text that the comparison is meaningless. I find it doubtful, by the way, that WWII did less damage in the East than in the West: the East suffered the fire-bombing of Dresden and a tank-battle in the streets of Berlin. Septentrionalis16:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I therefore suggest this "One response is that East Germany may have been less economically developed than West Germany at the end of WWII." Ultramarine02:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
You will find the map in the Appendix here interesting [103]. Overall, the destruction in East Germany seems less severe than in West Germany. This is not unexpected since the distance from the home bases increased and the dangers from the German air defense increased. Ultramarine20:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I find a (clearly labelled) map of housing destruction irrelevant, except in illustrating the fact that East-Germany-to-be was not a land of cities even in 1945. If Ultramarine had read section 3.1 of the same paper, he would have found that Allied bombing of industry was not effective through 1943; it may not even have decreased German production. The policy was then changed to area bombardment and housing destruction. This does not even support Ultramarine's new subconjecture that the East was less bombed than the West. All this remains irrelevant to the fact stated in the text. Septentrionalis16:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The paper states that the bombings were destructive after 1943 for the German economy. And large scale destruction of housing and cities are certainly problems for any new state. Therefore, again "One response is that East Germany may have been less economically developed than West Germany at the end of WWII". Ultramarine21:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine's sentence from the paper on the bombing proves nothing as to the relative destruction, which is why I did not quote it myself. His proposed text is improper; it is PoV to represent a statement of fact as partisan. Septentrionalis15:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
No more speculating. East vs West German productivy was around 90% in 1936 [104] and around 60-65% in 1954 [105]. When compared to the EU, the East German productivity declined from 67% in 1950 to 50% before the unification in 1989 [106]. Ultramarine19:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I rejoice to see Ultramarine forswear speculation.
A ten percent difference in productivity, especially during the Nazi development of Brandenburg, is more than sufficient to justify the statement in the present text, at least for 1936. I thank Ultramarine for the confirmation, and note that Herr Sleifer is, by his own statement, claiming a smaller differential than other papers.
Herr Sleifer makes a gallant attempt at the impossible; I doubt a better could be made. However, a proxy for East-Germany-to-be that includes much of Silesia, excludes Hither Pomerania, and fudges Berlin (as is, of course, unavoidable) may be suggestive, but not determinative. Herr Sleifer honestly acknowledges his difficulties, which are typical of the problem. Ultramarine would do well to reread the entire paper; one must, of course, assume he has read it, and not just the abstract. Septentrionalis14:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The differences are not large, as can be seen from table 3 in the first study. All show smaller differences in productivity than in 1954. The interesting thing is continual comparative decline during Communist rule. Of course there are uncertainties, but the alternative is simply to state that nothing is known. If you want to dispute the results of the studies, the place to do so is outside Wikipedia. Ultramarine16:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill
Your version:
"The capitalist economists of his time, such as David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, would have agreed with most of these predictions, at least as the most likely forecast of events; although they deduced the iron law of wages from Malthus's forecast of population increasing to the point of subsistence, rather than the exploitation of the capitalist system. "
This law only claims that the conditions will be the same for workers, not that they will get steadily worse or that all workers will become assembly line workers. Nor does it state that the capitalists must get richer, fewer, and become increasingly authoritarian monopolists. Nor that there must be a revolution. Mill rejected the law [107]. Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine is in part simply mistaken, and in part claiming the text says more than it does.
A passage on the subject of Malthusian immiserization would read:
Ricardo's doctrine was that, as population grows, wages must decline, until the workers reach a level of wretchedness so great that many of them will give up marrying and having to support children. At that point, the demand for manual labor will equal the supply, and the population will stabilize. This level will vary from country to country, depending on national customs.
Because of recent technological progress, and the discovery of the Americas, most of Europe - certainly England - was well above this natural level of wages; as was demonstrated by the continued growth of the population; but the arrival at that level is, in the long run, inevitable. This depressing conclusion was one of the chief reasons to call economics "the dismal science".
Mill included this in the first edition of his book, and always retained it in his exposition of the overall principles of economics. With each edition, however, he added arguments that the natural course was not the only possible course; with the right social and economic arrangements, the decline could be indefinitely delayed, perhaps even reversed.
The conclusion that the mass of laborers must always be manual laborers is a corollary.
I believe this is too long and too far off topic for this article - but I have not said anything inconsistent with it. I will change likely to natural - although I believe both are defensible. If Ultramarine wishes to be bold enough to change most to many, I will not reverse it. Septentrionalis21:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Then Mill obviously made different predictions and should not be included. Even in your interpretation of Ricardo, it is wrong to state that he would have agreed with most of Marx's predictions. He never made any predictions regarding capitalists or a revolution. He might have thought that the workers in his day would get lower wages temporarily until they reached sustenance levels. But in his view, this had happened many times before. There is nothing to support that he thought that this time would be different and create a revolution. At most, it is possible to state that Ricardo might have agreed that the workers temporarily would get poorer. Ultramarine19:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I would add to the present text, at the end of the parenthesis on Malthus, the following:
Ricardo, like Marx, saw a long secular decline in wages as inevitable; Mill came to believe that was the natural course of events, but that it could be delayed, perhaps reversed, if the right social and economic policies were adopted. Mill and Ricardo believed that the decline would end with an indefinite period of wretchedness, until the next temporary improvement; Marx foresaw a Revolution. Septentrionalis18:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is Ricardo's description of his law [108]. There is no mention of a long term secular delince. I have already given another source above regarding Mill above. You have given no sources which support your claims, please do Ultramarine17:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The long term decline follows from this passage; England was Ricardo's chief example of wages being above their natural level due to improving conditions. The claim of non-attribution is a falsehood, as Ultramarine knows; my authority on these subjects is (as in #David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, above) and remains John Stuart Mill: Principles of Political Economy; the 1909 edition collates the editions of Mill's lifetime, and so evidences the progress of Mill's thought.
Your version states:
"Since a market economy was introduced, a sharp decline in life expectancy was noted in the countries of the former Soviet Union. This decline has accelerated in Russia and Ukraine; in the Baltic republics life expectancy may have started to increase. In Eastern Europe, after 1990, the decline continued most notably in Romania, but life expectancy eventually began to increase in many of the other countries in the region."
This is more corrct:
"The life expectancy sharply declined after the change to market economy in several of the states of the former Soviet Union but may now have started to increase in the Baltic states. In several Eastern European nations, life expectancy started to increase immediately after the fall of Communism in several states. The previous decline for males continued for a time in some like Romania before starting to increase [109]" Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
What your source actually says is that the death rate in some categories was better in Romania in 1997-2000 or some of those years. It carefully and correctly avoids claiming significance. Septentrionalis22:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
From the study: "In Bulgaria and Romania, on the other hand, the health situation went on worsening till the late 90s. However, in both countries, since 1997, new progress has occurred. It is too early to be sure that this recent improvement definitely indicates the entry into a long-lasting stage of progress but these recent trends are encouraging." The text only states that the continued trend is uncertain, not that it has not occured or is insignificant. There is no nation in Eastern Europe that is not improving, please correct your text.
The sharp decline has not accelerated in Russia and Ukraine, please correct. There is no data for most of the countries of the former Soviet union, so correct your statement to "several of the countries", like my version. Please include that life expectancy started to increase immediately in several Eastern European countries, your version misleadingly gives the impression that it continued to decline. Ultramarine08:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I assume that your silence and lack of opposing sources mean that you accepet my version. Ultramarine 15:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC
Two weeks later, there is still no referenced evidence supporting their version. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. UltramarineUltramarine23:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The fluctuations in question were insignificant two weeks ago; they still are. No new evidence has been presented. Ultramarine is quite correct in one thing: I am not interested in his whining whinging. Septentrionalis16:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Cuba
Your version excludes:
"Cuba is often cited as a successful example of by communists. However, Cuba was one of most developed nations in Latin America before Castro. Other Latin American nations have seen greater increases in literacy than Cuba. Calories per person has declined in Cuba while it has increased in most other Latin American nations. Cubans eat less cereals and meat than before Castro" [110]. Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
In addition to the problems, discussed in the article, with inter-country comparisons in general, the comparison of Cuba to the rest of Latin America has the special problem: Cuba is the only Latin American country to have been Communist for forty years; it is also the only Latin American country to have been for forty years under embargo by its largest neighbor and geographically natural trading partner. Deconfounding those two uniquenesses is beyond the reach of honest statistics.
Come to think of it, that's a good paragraph. I'll go add it.Septentrionalis
I have added that Cuba has an embargo by the US. This is only a possible explanation for failure. Cuba is still not a successful example, which many Communists argue. Therefore, please include the negative aspects. Ultramarine08:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The article does not affirm any explanation for Cuba. It says, I believe justly, that all matchps between selected Communist and capitalist states are doubtful; all of those involving Cuba are more doubtful still. We have to mention even meaningless criticisms of Communism; but I balk at giving details of them. Septentrionalis19:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine, are you disputing that the embargo makes comparison all-but-impossible for the case of Cuba? If so, are you disputing the truth of the point, or disputing that the point is widely raised? Robert A West23:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
We should certainly not hide the criticism against Cuba but mention it and also the common counter-argument, the embargo. Again, many Communists claims that Cuba is successful example. This has been criticized as above and this criticism should be mentioned. Whether or not the embargo explains the failures can be discussed, but the embargo should also be mentioned. Even if the embargo explains the failures, it is still incorrect to call Cuba a successful current example of a Communist state.Ultramarine13:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
We could certainly add "Marx and Engels (?like Alexander Hamilton??) did not believe liberal democracy was a possible form of government, since all states represent the inherently unlimited rule of the owning class. After the Revolution, when all property was securely distributed among the proletariat, there would be no state, since it would have no function." and segue into the rematks on Bolshevik planlessness now in the article, attributed to Russell. Septentrionalis20:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
We cam add something like that. I assume that your long silence and lack of opposing sources means that accept the rest of the criticisms. Ultramarine15:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
In fact, I believe that this represents the only part of "Ultramarine's" section which is not already covered in the present text, shows any sign of understanding actual communist doctrine, and is comprehensible. At that, it has required serious rewriting. Ultramarine's assumptions are discussed below. Septentrionalis13:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
One week later, there is still no reply. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. Ultramarine04:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Your version does not include:
"In the Soviet Union in 1989 there was rationing of meat and sugar. The average intake of red meat for a Soviet citizen was half of what it had been for a subject of the Czar in 1913. Blacks in apartheid South Africa owned more cars per capita. The only area of consumption in which the Soviets excelled was the ingestion of hard liquor. Two-thirds of the households had no hot water, and a third had no running water at all. According to the government paper, Izvestia, a typical working class family of four was forced to live for 8 years in a single 8x8 foot room, before marginally better accommodation became available. The housing shortage was so acute that at all times 17% of Soviet families had to be physically separated for want of adequate space. A third of the hospitals had no running water and the bribery of doctors and nurses to get decent medical attention and even amenities like blankets in Soviet hospitals was not only common, but routine. The average welfare mother in the United States received more income in a month, than the average Soviet worker could earn in a year. [114]." Ultramarine05:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection to Ultramarine putting this in. It will probably be edited for length, and to point out that bribery of doctors is routine many places. Septentrionalis22:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer a paraphrase to the extended quotation. This will give the opportunity to tie it into points raised above and below. I congratulate Ultramarine on realizing that books, as well as peer-reviewed papers, are valid sources. Robert A West22:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
It's your quotation, so I was leaving the honor to you. I have only a few moments today, so I'll come up with a version tomorrow evening, unless someone beats me to it. Robert A West17:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Has Ultramarine understood the comment to which he is replying? If so, where is his proposed revision? I discuss Ultramarine's assumptions below. Septentrionalis13:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Two weeks later, there is still no alternative version. Thus, the excuse of insufficient time no longer apply. There is simply no interest in a factual debate or in creating a good, accurate encyclopedia with correct and referenced facts, only in pushing one POV regardless of accuracy. Ultramarine04:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. Ultramarine has declined the invitation to trim this lengthy quote into something more suitable to an article already too long. Since it would be uncivil to suppose that his writing skills are actually limited to billingsgate and cut-and-paste plagiarism, I see no other choice but to conclude that his alternate text is the null set. Mr. West appears to have had a life other thanbeen swallowed by his life outside Wikipedia for the last two weeks; Ultramarine does not have this excuse. Septentrionalis17:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Predictions
The entire section is false. Marx never made any predictions of these kinds. He did very few predictions in general, if any at all. I would even go so far to say that his only prediction was "all that is solid melts into air". Marxists however made quite numerous predictions.
If you do not agree with me, please refer to passages in Marx works.
Interesting development since you have long included the predictions in you own version. From the Communist Manifesto:
The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilization and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth.
The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labor, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level.
The increasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes.
The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry.
In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. What is more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labor increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by the increase of the work exacted in a given time, or by increased speed of machinery, etc
Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him.
The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.
On pesudo-science, Marx did claim that his method (the hypotetic deductive method) was scientific.
And Karl Popper is not really an authority on the subject any longer, is he? I would not just say that some social sciences are not falsifiable, I would say that all science (except logic and some methematics) are not falsifiable. Popper never really understood what science was; he thought that science was a logical construction and therefor should be treated as such. It is not. Even though he did understand that science was tested deductivly he still, strangely enough, believed that science was inductive in its essence: one single factor that did not completly logically agreed with the theory, was enough to immediately and fully discard it. Critics, such as Imre Lakatos pointed out that if that was the case, we would have to put down the whole science, except maybe for pure formal sciences such as logic and most areas of mathematics
Your version states "Marx and Engels (like Alexander Hamilton) did not believe liberal democracy was a possible form of government, since all states represent the inherently unlimited rule of the owning class." Please give a source for this interesting claim. UltramarineUltramarine07:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Hamilton's private disapproval of liberal democracy, as impractical, in favor of strong government, is well known; his difference from Marx is that he believed that "those who owned the country ought to govern it"; not merely that they will. If you wish to change to John Jay, as per Bartleby [116], go ahead, although the difference between Jay and Hamilton (as in the proposal to gerrymander New York in 1800) is in scrupulousness rather than philosophy. Septentrionalis17:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
See also Jefferson's Ana's:"Hamilton paused and said, "purge [the unreformed British Constitution] of it's corruption, and give to it's popular branch equality of representation, & it would become an impracticable government: as it stands at present, with all it's supposed defects, it is the most perfect government which ever existed." [117]Septentrionalis17:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
That is one theory. Joanne Freeman is a reputable scholar, but really this will not do as a source. Not only does she request it not be cited, but it is doubtless adapted to the PoV of her hosts [118]. In deference to her wishes, please remove this exchange. Septentrionalis03:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The host was the James Madison Program, discussed in the article; like all University programs, it is autonomous, as academic freedom requires. What have I said to suggest that the Daily Princetonian was the host?
As for your new source, Rayner's second quote is only slightly more favorable than his first, and his own conclusion is:
"Such were the strong aristocratical elements which entered into the composition of General Washington's cabinet. Against the weight of opinion, Mr. Jefferson constituted the great republican check, and the only one, except on some occasions when he was supported by the Attorney General." (Italics mine). Septentrionalis18:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
If you choose, as you have been repeatedly invited, to add a section to the collaborative version, it will be considered on its merits. The PoV fork to which you continually revert
contains much material which has been deprecated by several editors,
omits large quantities of material to which no one, even you, has objected.
That's why that version is, and will probably continue to be, reverted.
If you choose to add such a paragraph to the present text, I will not remove it; I reserve the right to edit it if I find, as I expect, that Pipes wrote something less silly than that Trotsky was a Lysenkoist before his time; as well as for grammar, spelling, and so forth.
Your version excludes the referenced criticism of the Marxist stages of history and the Marxist class analysis. Explain. Ultramarine23:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
A modest proposal
We can include a section called something like "Dubious criticisms" -or "debatable", "specious" ??
This would include the following:
Criticisms of the Communist states for acting like many other countries
Criticisms of China and the Soviet Union for acting like Great Powers
Criticisms of the Communists for not having instituted communism (which is already discussed)
The whole comparison controversy
And fraudulent or misleading criticisms from the White claims of the nationalization of women to the present day.for example
In the process, this can discuss most of the specific criticisms Ultramarine wants.
There should be more on Left non-Communist criticism, although I'm not sure there would be any new arguments. A history? Orwell, Koestler, Gide, Norman Thomas, Paul Goodman.... Septentrionalis16:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Free to edit
There are two kinds of changes to the collaborative text which I would regard as grounds for summary reversion:
Massive deletions without preliminary discussion and some agreement.
After looking at that debate, I would have to say that the involved parties could very much use a good read of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Most of these factual disputes could easily be resolved simply by shifting the microphone to the reference rather than Wikipedia. For example, if the statement "Technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven" is contentious, then Wikipedia should say "XXX said _here_ that technological progress in the Communist states was sometimes highly uneven." The latter claim cannot be disputed whereas the former can. Thus, everyone can be happy. Present facts -- not interpretations. Both sides of the aisle seem to be guilty of original research in their interpretations of facts. --causa suitalk16:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Sourcing would be a good thing, and in my view it could be done for almost all the points in dispute, on both sides. But I doubt it would resolve the dispute.
The central issue is this, from my PoV:
Ultramarine wishes the article to be a criticism of communism, as his edit summaries show. (See page history) The rest of us agree that his edits have reached this goal, but we regard it as advocacy. He has been repeatedly invited to edit the same version as the other editors, but he chooses to revert to what he calls "his" "critical" version. (See edit summaries, this talk page, and the page protection request.) Septentrionalis18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I support Ultramarine's version. I understand that the vote tally to attempt to achieve a consensus has been 3 to 1. Please make that 3 to 2. Thanks!--Agiantman22:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
I'll make that 3-3. The dispute just came to my attention because of a mention on another page on my watchlist. I've spent the last hour reading through the talk page and examining the revision history. Neither version is perfect. Ultramarines article is less well organised. However the majority of the substantive changes in the competing version seem clearly to be POV grinding and apologism, and thus entirely inappropriate. I'm adding this page to my watchlist and am willing to help clean it up when protection is lifted. Arker19:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Tudoreanu, allow me to make a few small points. I'm not supporting Ultramarine. This is not about persons. And, quite frankly, I can see that his personality IS problematic, and has aggravated things considerably - I'll give you that without argument. But it's not about personalities, it's about texts. Yes, I wasn't a contributor to the page before it was protected. On the other hand, there was a point where you weren't a contributor to the page either, is that not true? For you to imply that the fact that I came to the scene late means I should have no opinion would be no better than for him to imply the same of you.
The issue is, or at least should be, the texts, not the persons. And it's my honest impression at this point that, while both have problems, the one you call U would be a bit easier to clean up than the one you call M. I don't question the good faith on either part, but my reading did suggest that many of the changes were aimed at replacing criticisms with apologistic defences, which I do not think is appropriate. If you wish to argue the text, rather than the person, I'm ready and willing to listen, and my conclusions are entirely tentative and open to reassessment. Arker06:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine's assumptions
In this case, silence does not imply consent to Ultramarine's petty insistences on having exactly his own text (no matter who he has cut-and-paste it from). There is a famous routine about "When you assume", from Ernie Kovacs, IIRC, which sums up the situation. Most of the disputes above, are not, despite Ultramarine's yelling, factual disputes; they are disputes about NPOV, topicality and style. He has answered none of these. Where they are accuracy disputes, he has not demonstrated the position he chooses to believe.
Silence in response to his postings, therefore, has been, and will continue to be, a sign that he is continuing simply to argue, but is saying nothing material. In no case does it imply consent to "his' version, whether it is advocacy, tirade, bad writing, or simple falsehood. Septentrionalis13:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I should add that it is the run-up to the Labor Day holiday in the U.S., and that may temporarily limit some editors' ability to participate actively. I am relieved that no editor of this article seems to have been caught in Katrina. Robert A West22:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I had not intended to be gone so long...tonight is the first time since September 6 that I have been able to successfully edit -- or even read much -- without having continual timeout problems. I hope the fund drive helps with whatever upgrade is needed to fix this. I will fully review what has been said before commenting on anything. Robert A West22:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Oxymoron
The 'OED defines oxymoron as:
. Rhetoric. A figure of speech in which a pair of opposed or markedly contradictory terms are placed in conjunction for emphasis.
Those who refer to communist states are not juxtiposing what they see as opposing terms, in fact the idealistic stateless definition of communism is not generally known, so noone is trying to "emphasize" anything my juxtaposing the terms. In general usage, communism is associated with the oppressive destablizing evangelism of the Soviet state. The self deluding idealists don't own the term. Perhaps there can be some reference to the phrase appearing to be an oxymoron to a fringe group of idealists, but that should be on the communism page, not on a criticisms of communism page, or perhaps it could go in the criticisms of the communist state section, for those criticisms that come from the left. Such idealistic criticisms would be more credible if they were accompanied by specifics such as where the would be communist progression went wrong and whether "true communism" could ever be achieved without going through such oppressive stages.--Silverback07:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This does not respond to the question of paradox, and it misstates English usage. The OED is not a fringe organization, and it begins with:
1. a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.
‘I also conversed [in 1840] with some of the most advanced minds of the French metropolis, and there, in the company of some disciples of Babeuf, then called Equalitarians, I first pronounced the name of Communism, which has since..acquired that world-wide reputation (GOODWYN BARMBY in The Apostle No. i. 1848).
(Note that this dates from 1840 or before, and therefore precedes Marx.)Webster's Second begins with two similar definitions (although the OED and Webster's disagree whether communalism is a proper sense of communism). As I have said elsewhere, this permits a convenient statement of the criticism: the Communists were always promising to attain communism, but never did - which is now in the article.
The word communism was in fact present in the English language, and used exclusively with the meaning of "egalitarian, propertyless, classless and stateless society" all throughout the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Off the top of my head, I remember the word being used with that meaning in Proudhon's "What Is Property?" and H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine". I do not believe the Soviet Union & co. were ever referred to as "communist states" before the Cold War; in any case, the word "communism" has only begun to be used with the meaning of "a state ruled by a Marxist-Leninist party" in the second half of the 20th century. All communists have always rejected this derivative use of the word. That alone should be enough to exclude it from the article, because we cannot allow an ideology to be defined by its opponents (otherwise the article on Liberalism would begin with something like "Liberalism is a destructive ideology aimed at unraveling the fabric of society, undermining the family, promoting sodomy and other depraved bahaviour and killing babies. Some fringe groups of idealistic liberals, however, reject this definition..."). If that argument is not enough for you, though, all you have to do is look in an English dictionary. Septentrionalis has already cited the OED. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu03:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
You're claiming that ALL communists are, and always have been, anarcho-communists? You can't be serious. Arker19:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I am claiming that ALL communists have ALWAYS supported the abolition of the state (along with private property and social classes) as their ultimate political goal. They are not "anarcho-", because they do not wish to abolish the state immediately after the revolution; but they do wish to abolish the state eventually. This is one of the fundamental principles of Marxism. Furthermore, communists draw a clear distinction between "socialism" (the intermediate stage that is to be implemented after the revolution, in which the state continues to exist) and "communism" (the stateless, propertyless, classless society that is to replace socialism at some point in the future). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu04:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. You are referring, no doubt, to the theory that the the Communist state would 'wither away.' Of course Marxists have always wanted to abolish the State, where the State is read as 'the Bourgois State,' which in Marxist theory must be abolished, overthrown, in order to establish 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat,' what I am calling the Communist State, which it was posited would eventually, in some way, just wither away on its own accord. Do I grasp your position?
Now, I gather that you've argued that 'Communist State' is an oxymoron, 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' is properly called the 'Socialist State,' because Communism can only be used to refer to the state (as in state of existence, not a political State) which is posited to occur after the 'Socialist State' has withered away, and further that "All communists have always rejected this derivative use of the word" - with 'this derivative use' referring to the sense I use when I say 'Communist State.' Again, am I understanding your contentions correctly here? Arker06:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Remember, before 1945, the only Communist state was the Soviet Union; there was no "co." Septentrionalis03:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC) (I omit some quibbles about Kurt Eisner, Bela Kun, Tannu Tuva, and so forth.)
True. The Soviet Union was the only Communist state with a lifespan of more than a year before the Cold War, but I did not want to leave anyone out. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu04:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Legitimate criticism vs. straw men
For your convenience, here is the difference between the structure of legitimate criticism and the structure of a straw man:
1. Legitimate criticism
Supporters say or do X.
Critics argue that X is false or bad.
2. Straw man
Critics say that supporters have said or done Y.
Critics then proceed to argue that Y is false or bad.
A reductio ad absurdum: Critics say that that supporters of Hitler killed jews in camps. Critics then proceed to argue that killing jews in camps is wrong. True supporters of Hitler deny the holocaust, and only criticism of what true supporters say about Hitler is a legitimate criticism.--Silverback07:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Notice I specifically said "Supporters say or do X" in the first step of legitimate criticism. Hitler did kill jews in camps. Critics may then proceed to argue that killing jews in camps is wrong. Communist states did suppress emigration (for example). Critics may then proceed to argue that suppressing emigration is wrong. A straw man is when critics (a) claim that supporters did something without any proof that they did (e.g. Hitler flew to the Moon), or (b) claim that supporters hold views that they do not actually hold (e.g. communist states were examples of communism).
By the way, your reductio ad absurdum is fallacious. You are implicitly comparing a falsifiable fact (the Holocaust) with the definition of an ideology (the definition of communism). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu13:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I should have been specific. Mine is a reductio ad aburdum of the straw man structure, not the legitimate criticism. Note the structure and language of my sentences closely mirrors the straw man.--Silverback07:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I was already aware of that. I have explained why your reductio ad absurdum is fallacious: First of all because you used the straw man structure for a criticism that can fit into the legitimate structure, and second because you draw an implicit comparison between a falsifiable statement of fact ("Hitler killed jews in camps" must be either true or false, and its truth value can be proved) and the definition of a term (you cannot prove or disprove a definition; you can only postulate it and accept the implications - for example, if you postulate that communism does not seek to abolish the state, then Karl Marx was not a communist). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Marx would just not be a communist by one of the top definitions. Of course, definition 1 below does not abolish the state, but Marx would probably still be a communist under it. Because it also does not say the state is not abolished. But, in Marx's case, he also at times did not want to self identify as a marxist, so it would not surprise if he didn't want to be a communist by today's definitions. BTW, what were your strawman structures aimed at? I'd like to consider what point you were making.--Silverback21:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The most authoritative dictionary definition of communism in the United States would be the American Heritage definition
1. A theoretical economic system characterized by collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
And the 2nd definition is for Communism with a capital "C"
2.a A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy, and a single often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress towards a higher social order in which all goods are shared equally by the people.
2 b The Marxist-Leninist version of communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.
I'm not sure what you mean. If you accept the definition, I think it should be on its merits and we don't need a consensus.--Silverback21:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Technically possible, of course; but I doubt it would help. This page is already a splinter from Communism. Dividing it further would only induce more repetition, since most critics, and some criticisms, fall into more than one of these suggested articles. What this article needs, however, is for a single disruptive editor to learn to Play with Others; and that, since this is not his web-log, policy requires that this article discuss criticisms of communism (and Communism) rather than being one. Septentrionalis19:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see the history of the main page for the correct referenced version. Unfortunately, it is continually reverted and replaced by an incorrect and unreferenced version. Ultramarine19:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine's claims of accuracy may be judged in three ways:
reading the PoV fork he edits, and regards as "his" version.
comparing the magniloquent edit summaries of his reversions to this fork with the minuscule actual diffs.
An excellent example of Septentrionalis misleading insinuations. He links to an old discussion that have falsely been labeled as resolved. See this more recent discussion regarding life expectancy [120] which he finishes with uncivility and have no sources supporting his version. Ultramarine17:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It has been so headed since July 27. Ultramarine reviewed the entire section two or three hours later; he could have removed the label then, or any time since; it is disingenuous to do so, or complain of it, now. I will be repairing the link shortly.
The later section does not discuss alcoholism at all. This may be the closest Ultramarine has ever come to taking Cromwell's advice and considering that he might be mistaken. Septentrionalis17:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have numerous times corrected my version when there is referenced support. On the other hand, I can not recall any situation where you have ever admitted even the slightest mistake, even when references clearly show that you are wrong, unlike for example Mihnea Tudoreanu who occasionaly has corrected some errors in your version that I have pointed out. Ultramarine17:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Claiming that a version is "my" version is a violation of policy. Doubtless Ultramarine has corrected some errors in this long dispute, and in good faith remembers correcting more. Septentrionalis18:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
As for the irrelevancy about #Life_expectancy_2: the point at issue is that Ultramarine's source does not claim (or demonstrate) statistical significance for the source's additional data. But I suppose anyone capable of writing "he...have no sources" (as Ultramarine did a few minutes ago[121]) will also have difficulty reading English. I regret having long overestimated Ultramarine's abilities; but he normally simulates literacy better than he has been doing recently. Unfortunately, this may have led to simple incompetence being perceived as carelessness or dishonesty. Septentrionalis18:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Emigration
The following paragraphs both stood in the article.
'Restrictions on emigration are widely seen as a mechanism for suppressing dissent. The Berlin wall was one of the most famous examples of this, but North Korea still imposes a total ban on emigration (reported on PBS's program Frontline) and Cuba's restrictions are routinely criticized by the Cuban-American community.
The escape valve of last resort from repressive regimes is emigration, but the communist states were notorious for violently preventing and severely punishing attempts to escape. Individualists will argue that the anti-democratic nature of these regimes is perhaps best revealed by this prevention of even allowing citizens to "vote with their feet".
Mihnea deleted the second paragraph, on the ground that it was entirely redundant with the first, and that the value-judgment of the last sentence is common to all anti-communists, not just individualists. I disagree on both points.
While the paragraphs should be merged, they are distinct thoughts. And the view that the most anti-democratic thing about Communism was the refusal of emigration (as opposed to, say, one-party elections) is a specific PoV, which I believe is best called individualism. Perhaps should have been struck, as above.
Individualists, as Silverback is often fond of pointing out, don't think very highly of democracy. Thus, I do not believe that the individualist criticism would focus on communist states being anti-democratic (to be honest, I'm not exactly sure what the individualist criticism is, because "individualists" is a vague term which could mean almost anyone as long as no qualifiers are used; I can think of several opposing ideologies claiming to represent the One True Individualism). It would probably be more accurate to say: "Individualists argue that these restrictions on emigration are one of the most repressive features of communist states." However, we still need to say which individualists we are talking about. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu21:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with democracies, is that they don't necessarily protect minorities, democratic republics are better at that. The problem with communist democracies, is that they aren't democracies.--Silverback08:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
The correct and referenced version
Please see the history of the main page for the correct referenced version. Unfortunately, it is continually reverted and replaced by an incorrect and unreferenced version. Ultramarine06:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
FYI to everyone involved-- I reverted the posting of the "correct and referenced version" twice today because I see no evidence of any attempt by Ultramarine to resolve the concerns about his version stated by multiple editors. Instead, there now seems to be an effort a tag-team reverting joined by another editor. So it's pointless for me or for anyone else not involved in the relevant arbitration case to edit this article. Therefore, just to give everyone the heads up, I will no longer make even an occasional edit to this page. 172 | Talk10:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
After making the above posting, I went ahead and reverted myself, restoring the Ultramarine version. I did so to more clearly disassociate myself from this article. 172 | Talk10:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The argument has been made that this article should be a piece of advocacy because Communism is. I don't know whether the claim is true; as I've stated to the arbiters, my only substantive edit there was reverted. But the argument is a perfect instance of WP:Point and should be deprecated. This article must be NPoV; if anyone wishes to go straighten out Communism, they should do so. Have a nice day, and may the road rise up to meet your feet. Septentrionalis16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I hope that is not the argument that has been made. The article should assemble referencable criticisms of communism, and should be balanced by referenced weaknesses of those criticisms. However, if the strength of the criticisms is a wealth of negative information from the communist dictatorships, the communist apologia of balancing "yes but" facts does not get "equal time". "Balancing" facts that are not criticisms or weaknesses of the negative criticisms, should go in the communism article. There should be no advocacy in either article. This article should be written as if it will eventually merge with the communism article and not have to replicate the information there.--Silverback23:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
If that is not the argument you are making, you should consider rephrasing future edit summaries.
You should view the edit summaries in the context of an ongoing conversation. Previous summaries were engaged in namecalling, dismissively referring to a version as an advocacy version. While engaging in this patwah, I never for a moment thought the well reverenced Ultramarine version was any, but a good faith effort to document the criticisms of communism. He has done a lot of hard work, are the others working on this article really trying to document the criticisms of communism, or are they trying to frustrate his efforts. You have to admit that he has done more work documenting quality criticisms of communism that anyone else here. Wikipedia should respect such efforts.--Silverback08:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This article can't merge with Communism; it's 36K and I believe Communism is longer – I haven't looked at Communism since my edit was reverted. Each article should be balanced and NPoV, because each article is readable separately. I agree the subject of the present article should criticisms of communism (which includes the weaknesses of such criticisms), and that is the intent of my edits. It could stand to lose some length, but not at the cost of comprehensibility. Septentrionalis05:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
We should focus on article quality, which has little do with article length. When you speak of "balance" keep in mind that the title of this article is "Criticisms of communism". The goal should be the completeness and the correctness of the criticisms. To be useful to the reader any weaknesses in the criticisms should be pointed out, but fair presentation of the criticisms should be the goal.--Silverback07:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine's edits violate the the basic concept of neutrality:Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. This is what I mean, and shall continue to mean, by advocacy. It is a violation of policy, by itself.
Ultramarine has typed a lot and almost all of it is in the collaborative version. His research is less admirable, since he often misreads his sources. Please read this talk page for examples. Septentrionalis22:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This is often cited by critics as evidence that historical materialism is a flawed theory
Is historial "materialism" the correct term? Shouldn't it be historical "determinism"? Of course, "determinism" would make the implications of failed predictions all the more serious for the theory. I thought the determinism was a central article of the faith. It gives hope to those who want what is said to be "determined", and, if believed, weakens the will of those who would resist the "inevitable", and justifies the severe oppressive measures as resulting in a net shortening of the process and cost in human lives and misery to get to the final result, the second coming of the stateless society.--Silverback09:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Why does Ultramarine remove Marx's prediction that capitalism would become more tyrannical as the Revolution approached, speaking of unjusitfied deletions? Septentrionalis23:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I see no evidence of a request for protection of this article, and there is no need to prejudge the outcome of the RfA, especially as it relates to this article, which was progressing just fine.--Silverback13:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see quite what the reason for protection is. I see that there may be a problem user (the subject of the RFA), but why protect the page? If the problem is a single editor and not a larger edit war, I don't think protection is a good way to deal with it. Better to block a single problem editor (if that is indeed the problem) than to protect an article from all edits. Friday(talk)21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no policy under which he could be blocked, since he's careful to avoid breaking WP:3RR, and even if he were blocked temporarily I'm sure he would just come back later anway. These edit wars have been going on for months. Right now, I'm just patiently waiting for Arbcom to resolve the issue. In the mean time, I want the edit war stopped. --causa suitalk21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
He is careful to not violate policy, unlike yourself. You also forget to note that he was not just edit warring like the others. He was continuing to improve the article, citing sources, and responding to input.--Silverback09:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
...while refusing to contribute to the collaborative version and removing any edits made by other users on his version. Ultramarine was claiming ownership of this article, and still is. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu20:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Surely such a notorious disruptor could be blocked for disruption? I still think I'd rather see a user block (affecting only one editor) than page protection (affecting many editors). Friday(talk)20:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
There need not be a request for protection in order to protect anything. An edit war, as clearly exists on this article, is cause enough. Also, people can be blocked for general disruption if revert warring, even if they revert 'only' thrice a day. The Three Revert Rule is not an entitlement, it's an electric fence. Radiant_>|<17:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Constructiveness
Okay. So what exactly is the difference between the two versions? Please discuss their respective merits here and work out a compromise. Radiant_>|<17:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine has declined to accept compromise in those discussions, and has introduced some other very peculiar claims into his solitary edits. More seriously, his edit is a criticism of Communism, instead of discussing such criticisms. Septentrionalis19:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
False, others have contributed to "my" version which is extermely well-referenced. Septentrionalis version contains deliberate factual inaccuracies, numerous NPOV violations and unverifiable original research. Ultramarine19:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
![[33]](http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB2A.GIF){kind=link}
