Talk:Socialist state/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In the talk page for China it says that there are eight parties currently. In other words, it is not a one-party system. Danny

There is one dominant party that has controlled politics since 1949. China is currently evolving but it is far from a multi-party state. It could at best be described as a one and a bit party system. So Communist state is still the most accurate term, albeit not 100%. But no other term comes remotely close to describing the state-party relationship. Maybe as things evolve, a different term might replace it, but at present, CS is the nearest term to fit what is currently the system. ÉÍREman 20:24 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

If there are rival parties, it is not a one-party state, no matter how minor those parties are. Danny

IMO the term communist state is not that frequent, Socialist countries or communist regime sound better to me. Ericd 21:19 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Incorrect. Socialist means different things in different world regions so it is not generally applied in world source books. Regime means a structure of government that is less based on rules of government and constitutional structure than personalised authority. So regime is 100% wrong. So is socialist. Communist state is the standard nomenclature. ÉÍREman 22:43 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

This article, certainly with respect to its link from China, is POV. prat

Sorry Prat, I just noticed your change and was changing my note and found myself in an edit conflict with yourself. The addition you changed wasn't actually my work and when I saw it I thought initially it was yours. So mea culpa and apologies. And please do add to the page. ÉÍREman 00:45 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Calm down. See the change I made '(implied:always) totalitarian' to 'usually authoritarian' (add or totalitarian if you think it necessary). I still don't like - "Whereas in multi-party liberal democracies..." ... because this is POV. It espouses the merits of one, specific political system without NPOV references to alternatives (as anarchism). I'll rewrite it soon, if nobody else does. prat

I agree with prat and Danny. Shino Baku

Good change, Shino. ÉÍREman 00:48 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

How would one identify ROC, which for most of its history was a one-party state, or Mexico (which,m under PRI, was more one-party than PRC), or CHile under Allende? If we call these "authoritarian states," mustn't we call "communist states" one kind of "authoritarian state," since the major difference is which is the one party that rules? Slrubenstein

Not as a communist state, which is obvious if you read the article.

Which leads to the serious POV issue of defining all communist states as being authoritarian. Shino Baku

Well, I am with you on that, Shino -- see my last comment on Talk China. Slrubenstein

I agree totally which is why I never added that term in to start off with, and which is now why I am removing it totally. And I have already reverted to Shino's last version here, because Fred added in an extraordinarily OTT POV rant which would make even Donald Rumsfeld cringe. ÉÍREman 03:51 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that last about Donald Rumsfeld is possible. But an intriguing thing is, that sort of characterisation isn't associated with communism anyway. It's essentially the same extrapolation/caricature that Jack London levelled against capitalism in "the Iron Heel". It's interesting that such ideas were going the rounds in left wing circles then, as it seems possible that they may have influenced people like Mussolini in designing Fascism later. Anyway, regardless of the POV aspect, it's definitely not something linked to communism as such, either in theory (even of its enemies) or in practice. PML.

I think state or country is fine (with added material) provided the other passages in issue remain. BTW Slrubenstein you need an additional archive for your user talk page. Fred Bauder 03:36 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Fred Bauder and JTDIRL are welcome to argue over the correct phrasing of the opening paragraph. I have an objection to both versions, though. If the claim is that most communist states are authoritarian, it is important to explain what the non-authoritarian ones are. Also, if it is a one-party state, somewhere soon it has to explain what a non-communist one party state is (as I discuss above). I consider these issues fundamental to a useful classification. Nevertheless, I renew my objection to this silly, non-scholarly, POV discussion which only confuses both substantive issues in political theory, and methodological issues in the history of political classifications. Slrubenstein

The big problem that I have with the article is that I don't see how the definition excludes Taiwan under the KMT in the 1960's or for that matter Nazi Germany.

My understanding of Communist state was that is included the element of state control over the economy, which excludes KMT-Taiwan, Nazi Germany, and (this is the issue) China today, where the fraction of the economy that is state owned is less than France and dropping.

Roadrunner

Added what makes Communist state different from other one party systems. Also added that the classification of China as communist is controversial (it is among the political scientists I know). Finally removed statement about non-state party officials having extensive power in China.

Roadrunner

Finally removed statement about non-state party officials having extensive power in China. Where did that come from? Good removal! I've tweaked a few words here or there to cover the various arguments. ÉÍREman 05:06 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

The term also implies state control of the economy and therefore excludes one party states such as Nazi Germany or authoritarian regimes such as 1960s Taiwan.

Could somebody clarify this? Shino Baku

Duh!!!! It just occured to me what the defining characteristic of a Communist state is. A Communist state is based on the ideology of Marxist-Leninism.

I rewrote much of the article to point out the centrality of Marxism-Leninism in the communist state and to point out how the features of the classic communist state flows from the ideology.

Roadrunner

Roadrunner, this is the clearist and most sensible formulation I have yet heard. Nevertheless, there are two problems -- I am not saying these problems nullify your definition, but I think they would have to be addressed in the article.

1) Marxist-Leninist theory itself says there can be no "communist state;" communism is established only after the withering away of the state (see Lenin's State and Revolution).

2) Many Marxist-Leninists outside of the Soviet Union and China have argued that their communist party leaders are not following Marxist-Leninist thought (see Shachtman's The Bureaucratic Revolution)

I addressed both of those issues as criticisms to the concept of the communist state. -- User:Roadrunner

I suspect that this is why JTDIRL wanted to keep ideology out of the definition.

The trouble is that I don't see how you can. There is no way that I can see that you can explain what is and isn't a communist state without using the term Marxism.

Personally, I continue to believe that

1) a classification of states should be based on structures independent of ideology

2) what have been called "communist states" are better classified as "authoritarian" (with the proviso that authorittarian states must be subdivided, perhaps based on distinct class alignments or rules concerning the ownership of capital)

3) the only reason people in the West ever used the term "communist states" was because we had many puppet and allied "authoritarian states" and we needed to distinguish our COld War enemies from our Cold War allies. This is not a scientific distinction, it is political -- and I continue to believe that "communist state" is a scientifically useless classification and has meaning only in a political context.

I started an article Kirkpatrick doctrine which addressed that issue. Just to be open about my ideological biases, personally I do think that there is a big difference between totalitarian and authoritarian states, which basically reflects the difference between China-1965 and China-2003.

The problem that I have with the classification of China as a Communist or totalitarian state is that my belief is that categories should have some predictive value. For example, one characteristic of a totalitarian state is that the state must be omniscient and can admit no error, because admitting error calls into question the state's governing ideology and therefore its right to rule. So China's handling of the SARS debacle in which a minister was sacked, is something that simply could not happen in a totalitarian state.

-- Roadrunner

--They also like to use the term "communist state" as a form of propaganda against communism, so that whenever somebody endorses communism they can point to a "communist state" as "proof" that communism doesn't work. Shino Baku

Which brings up an interesting issue. There are two groups of people who deny that China is a communist state. One consists of hard-core leftists who argue that China has abandoned the ideals of communism. The other are right-wing conservatives who agree. The logic is this. Communist states and communism doesn't work economically. The PRC is working economically. Therefore the PRC cannot be "really" Communist or a Communist state. The interesting thing is that there are a curiously large number of conservatives who hold the that logic. These include business-conservatives who think that its a fine thing that China is not communist and so that there is a chance to make money, and neoconservatives who think that China is a nasty, evil threat to the United States and world peace and that China is hypernationalist, fascist, evil but curiously not communist. -- User:Roadrunner

That said I am not going to delete anything you write, but I really honestly believe the article needs to address the questions I have raised, in some way. Slrubenstein

I suggest you all work on an article which includes the general charactertics of a communist ruled state. I realize my version of the article is a bit unbalanced. I'll work to make it more balanced, but I'm not going away. As far as your position that the article can be limited to a political science definition, take that to wiktionary. Fred Bauder 12:47 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

Fred, three points need to be made:

First, it is dishonest to make a major revert by stealth. Major reverts should never be marked as "minor". Please don't do that.
Second, your material, as you have said yourself, is unbalanced. Not "a bit". A lot. How much emphasis have you placed on the positive achievements of communist states? Or on the difficulties placed in the way of the major comunist states by other major powers? A good entry is always even-handed. It does not exist to condemn, but simply to describe.
Third, this is not the place for it. If you can balance up your text, perhaps a place can be found for it in another article. Tannin 13:17 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, like everyone else who has observed this ongoing row, is correct. If you can produce a balanced text, it can indeed be included in a relevant article. But this is NOT the article. This is, as everyone else who has touched this article (bar Adam, of course) is agreed, explicitly dealing with a political science definition of the political science term 'communist state'. It is not an article on communism, a fact that you alone on wikpedia seem to have great difficulty in grasping but an article exclusively on a system of government, just as the article on federalism is on a system of government, not on the politics within a particular federal system, just as the article on devolution is on devolution, not on the politics of a state with devolved system of government, just as constitutional monarchy is about a system, not a discussion on the politics of monarchies. At this stage the number of people who have read your contribution and view it as unbalanced is growing constantly. And even if it was balanced, people are almost universally agreed that you are putting it in the wrong article. So constant attempts to put irrelevant information (even if balanced, and this is a long long way from balanced) into the wrong article will simply be reverted as often as necessary. At this stage, the only question is which of a long line of people who have criticised your additions will be the first to do the reversion each time you add in irrelevant material. So for your own sake, don't keep wasting your own time and effort trying to put your information into the wrong article that will never be allowed stay there. Rewrite it in a balanced way and put it into an article where it is relevant, whether communism, the history of the USSR, China or wherever. But it is not going here, where it is 100% irrelevant. ÉÍREman 14:17 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

"an article exclusively on a system of government"

Exactly and on its characteristics Fred Bauder 14:21 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

OH boy. How many times and how many people have to explain it. A system of government deals with two issues: the constitutional structures and how they work. In this case, it involves the concept of government as held within communism and the manner in which in a Cs of government, unlike in liberal democracies party and constitutional structures are embedded in each other. The general characteristics of a political system belong in an article on the political system or on history, not here. Jeez. How come you have such difficulty grasping a fundamental characteristics of this article, when no-one else can? Your information if well written belongs in an article. But simply not this one because it is as irrelevant here as discussing George W. Bush's linguistic dexterity in an article on Federal Republics, or a piece on Prince Charles's sex life in an article on the constitutional concept of constitutional monarchy. Please stop making a fool of yourself here with this battle you are not going to win. ÉÍREman 14:30 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

It's like the holocaust. An article on the "Nazi state" is going to mention it. Likewise here. If you regard the article as somehow a definition, it is a dictionary article and belongs in Wiktionary. Where do you think information of this nature belongs? The general characteristics of a Communist state, that is? Fred Bauder 20:27 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

Fred, get it through your dense skull that this isn't an article on the Soviet Union but a government-type. Do you understand, for instance, that atrocities against Native Americans or the role of the US government in the rise of Pol Pot would not belong in an article on "federal republic", the government-type of the US?

No, it's an article which may properly include valid generalizations about the various communist states which have existed. Fred Bauder 02:37 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Aside from that, only a few sentences of the rant that you want to add would be salvageable in any other article. It's propaganda that ignores the varying conditions of Communist states from East Germany to Vietnam, the varying economic structures from Hungary to North Korea, the varying type of resource allocation from centrally planned economies (CPEs) of the Soviet-type to China’s mixed economy, variations in politics from Stalinism to bureaucratic pluralism, and ideological schisms like the ones between China and the USSR since Khrushchev or between Yugoslavia and the USSR. Under Communist governments from 1917 to the present there has not been a single mode of development, a single monolithic ideology and social system in the Communist world due to differences in historical conditions, social systems, development levels, cultural traditions and concepts of values. While Communists have seized power in mostly agrarian countries, initial conditions varied greatly. Keep in mind that a quarter of the world's population lives under Communist states today, down from one-third before 1989. In contrast, you have a highly-oversimplified, elementary grasp of one era, the Stalinist era in Russia, and you confuse that with all other Communist states along with your own unique analysis of the disillusion of the Soviet Union. Your contributions would go well in a flier for Joe McCarthy for Senate, but come nowhere close to scholarly history. 172

"Aside from that, only a few sentences of the rant that you want to add would be salvageable in any other article."
- The problem is that what I have in the article is simply a more or less objective description of what has happened in the historical communist states. Fred Bauder 02:37 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
"It's propaganda that ignores the varying conditions of Communist states from East Germany to Vietnam, the varying economic structures from Hungary to North Korea, the varying type of resource allocation from centrally planned economies (CPEs) of the Soviet-type to China’s mixed economy, variations in politics from Stalinism to bureaucratic pluralism, and ideological schisms like the ones between China and the USSR since Khrushchev or between Yugoslavia and the USSR. Under Communist governments from 1917 to the present there has not been a single mode of development, a single monolithic ideology and social system in the Communist world due to differences in historical conditions, social systems, development levels, cultural traditions and concepts of values. While Communists have seized power in mostly agrarian countries, initial conditions varied greatly."
- The objective statement of the facts of a nasty situation is not "propaganda" however unpleasant it may be. Valid generalizations may properly be made despite the wide variation in the conditions and history of the communist states. Fred Bauder 02:37 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)
"...you have a highly-oversimplified, elementary grasp of one era, the Stalinist era in Russia, and you confuse that with all other Communist states along with your own unique analysis of the disillusion of the Soviet Union. Your contributions would go well in a flier for Joe McCarthy for Senate, but come nowhere close to scholarly history."
- Not really, you are not dealing with McCarthyism here, just an attempt to write a good and accurate encyclopedia article which adequately addresses the subject. Fred Bauder 02:37 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

How can ONE PERSON be so utterly incapable of understanding what a political science term is, what belongs in an article on a political science term and what doesn't? How many revertions will be necessary for him to cop on that he is 100% wrong, the stuff is 100% irrelevant and it has 0% of being left in the article? 20 revertions? fifty reversions? ÉÍREman 23:41 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

There is a place in the article for a scholarly definition of the term, but an encyclopdia article is not about a phrase or proper use of terminology but about the thing itself. Fred Bauder 02:37 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

I explained this on your user page. It's Fred's totalitarian mindset. 172

Bogus Fred Bauder 02:37 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it. The great critic of totalitarianism practices totalitarianism in an attempt to attack totalitarianism. ÉÍREman 23:46 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)

And how is this? You simply want an article written from a sympathetic point of view. Fred Bauder 02:37 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

No one wrote anything about conveying a sympathetic point of view. Quit misrepresenting and slandering users, Fred. 172

Jtdirl keeps reverting Mr. Bauder's contribution which roughly states:

Typically a communist state is characterized by a command economy...such a state is characterized by the division of the population into two castes, party members and the rest of the population. Only a small group, the politbureau, typically hold any real power. In such states, a large secret police apparatus tends to closely monitor the population. Likewise, concentration camps and other facilities are used to incarcerate and "liquidate" political dissidents.
There have been two major communist states, The Soviet Union and its satellites and the People's Republic of China. Minor states include Albania, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Viet Nam and North Korea.
A communist state typically arises during a time of general international unrest as a result of a communist revolution lead by a national communist party.
The application of orthodox communist doctrine to development of a country and building of socialist institutions has historically proven to be problematic.

I know that jtdirl, mav, 172, and others view me as an "mongrel asshole-idiot cockroach troll from hell"; however, here I am once again vandalizing the wikipedia by asking what is so wrong with the above statements. I feel that statements to this effect should be part of the article.

I once again re-iterate that I do not feel it is appropriate for jtdirl and 172 to advocate banning Mr. Bauder simply because they have some (from the POV of myself and Mr. Bauder) insifficiently explained issue with Mr. Bauder's work, nor is it appropriate for them to slander him by saying that he has a "totalitarian mindset". I hope that, at some point, the wikipedia will add a chatroom so that we can all discuss issues such as this, in a "real-time format".

I know that jtdirl and 172 feel that they have explained this issue and "beat the bush to death", so to speak, but the fact remains that nobody has actually taken Mr. Bauder's contribution and explained why each and every sentence is 100% unacceptable. I feel this must be done, in all fairness to Mr. Bauder.

Like a Virgin

Adam, in editing the above, you inadvertently blew your own cover. In particular your mention of Jimbo (which you suddenly censored out where he featured in the original draft alongside jtdirl, Mav, 172 and Zoe, in the process blanking the page for a while) revealed who you are. If you were a new user, you would know almost none of the things you claim; who Jimbo is, the attitudes of Zoe, 172 and myself towards Adam's trolls. And so far in your current identity here Mav has been nothing but nice. So why attack him? The suspicion that you are simply the latest reincarnation of multiple banned user Adam has been expressed by others on the wiki-list, who examined your editing style and compared it to Lir and found it pretty much identical. Your attack on Jimbo here (whom you would not know of, if you were a brand new user as he is not a regular visitor here) and who else you attacked, pretty much shows exactly who you are. And as Adam did when he lauched Susan Mason and Dietary Fiber on wiki, he now seems to be a policy of launching multiple troll attacks. So now it is Shino Baku and Like a Virgin. As Derek Ross told your 'pal' Shino, we follow a policy of 'don't feed the trolls'. As both LaV and SB are clearly the latest from Adam's stable of trolls, the lines of communication with them are now shut. ÉÍREman 12:10 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Re MyRedDice - good edits, man. ÉÍREman 12:10 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Oh no god forbid, jtdirl cracked my cover! Quick scottie, beam me up! I took Jimbo out of the list because unlike you, I haven't seen him make any personal attacks against me. Im glad you are friends with Mav, he has hardly been nice to me. I have not attacked him, attacking somebody is NOT noting the mean things they say about you. Nor have I attacked Jimbo. Like a Virgin