Talk:Communism - Definition

• Talk:Communism/Archive1

• Talk:Communism/Archive2

• Talk:Communism/Archive3

• Talk:Communism/Archive4

• Talk:Communism/Archive5

Recent reverts

...requires greater rationality or wisdom for the planners, or voters, or workers' council members, than is consistent with the bounded rationality of the species.

If this wording is seen to be imperfect, the concept must be expressed. One of the obvious failings of communism is that not only are humans not morally capable of intituting equality, they are also intellectually incapable. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think a problem is the phrase bounded rationality, which comes from a generally antipathetic ideological position, and also implies that communism is somehow inherently naive and/or not humanly possible.Grant65 (Talk) 13:59, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Criticism comes from "critics," see further discussion under that subheading below. Every ideological subject in wiki has a "criticism of" heading, as do scientific theories such as Darwinism, etc. And the criticism expressed there alwats comes from "antipathetic...positions" because that's where one would expect criticism to come from. Why is that a problem?

--Christofurio 20:11, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

If humans are not morally capable of "intituting" equality, then what could be? Equality in this sense is not even well-defined, and given a moral definition of fairness (of which there are a few contenders), humans could certainly approach the goal as they do any other.--Csmcsm 02:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps they could approach equality for themselves as individuals, but it would be more difficult to decide for others. Consider how individual the decision of whether to work an extra hour is, or to take if off, or to volunteer an hour. Prices, in the context of freedom, can aid in the decision, but ultimately the decision is individual. Equality is easy to apply if all individuals are identical, but the evidence is that even "identical" twins, aren't.--Silverback 07:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You really have to stop using that 'twins' line. Physical makeup has nothing to do with equality (or equity, which is what we should be talking about). Certainly any normative view on either would be better than what capitalism has achieved so far.--Csmcsm 20:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism isn't done yet. Equality in poverty is better than inequality in wealth if one accepts the norm of envy, but why be so materialistic. Do you have any evidence for the certainty you assert, I doubt it can be achieved short of a tautology?--Silverback 22:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is clarified as a criticism. And of course communism is inherently naive and/or not humanly possible, thats the point! ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly Sam. Thanks for the support. Criticism of an ideological position often cocomes from an "antipathetic ideological position"! What a shock. The NPOV thing to do is to state the various antipathetic positions fairly, and some of our communist friends seem averse to having that done here. --Christofurio 17:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

The criticism is so naive I don't understand how such clever people as you, Sam can fall for it. Please explain how communism requires greater rationality for voters, council members, planners, etc. than, say, for President of the US of A, the SEC commission and Federal Reserve?

Let us forget for a second that the article is about communist ideology, not about its communist state. I understand that much of criticism comes from the thought that communists were planning everything, and this is humanly impossible, no doubt. But this is a naive college-grade understanding of communism, similar to the rumors that communists have everything common: common wives, common shoes and common toothbrushes. Another misunderstanding is that plans were something chiseled in stone. Of course there were not. They were always corrected through the course of the time. Sitll, please, this is not criticism of communism. This is criticism af any centrally planned economy, and hence belongs to the latter article.

Still another point, who told you that in communist state everything was planned for best of all people? That would require inhuman amount of planning for sure. In Soviet Union the planning was for good of the state in the first turn. People were treated as livestock; bare minimality. Mikkalai 19:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten and don't plan to forget that this article is about communist ideology, and I've done nothing to try to change the focus to communist states. The point, though, is that communism as described in the rest of this very article would require a sort of planning that would supplant markets and for-profit exchanges, rather than the sort that works through that medium. Most actual "communist" states give up on this idea pretty quickly -- it didn't take Lenin himself very long to retreat into the New Economic Policy. When I say such things, I often hear, "Oh yes, but next time will be different, we'll have majority rule." Sorry, but the problem is with the agenda. (There are other problems as well, having to do with the dynamics of revolutions, but that is the problem targeted by this criticism.) And, yes, this criticism belongs also in other articles. It doesn't follow it ought to be deleted from this one. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well the correlation between a command economy and communism is obviously that all prominent Communist states (before liberalization) have implemented a command economy. There has never been a country where the final classless communist phase was achieved and the government lost all its form, as Marx puts it. Trey Stone 03:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And one more: about alleged imposibility of total planning. If it were so, modern microchips could not possibly have beed designed and you wouldn't have this wonderful computer to type your naive arguments in. Ever heard about hierarchical approach to compex tasks? Mikkalai 19:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The distinction remains between planning within the context created by market exchanges and planning deprived of that context. You might spend a lot of time and effort devising a new and better microchip -- you must eventually sibmit it to the ultimate test of whether other freely contracting parties want to invest in its mass production, and their decision will have a lot to do with whether other freely contracting parties will want to buy it. Planning as a way of disrupting that higgle-haggle is uniformly a disaster, for reasons at whicht he critique in this article has hinted. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that few people have heard of "bounded rationality" and even fewer would agree that it is an accurate reflection of human beings. Maybe I should try inserting a bit of kitsch marxist jargon, just to see how long it lasts, on the Friedrich von Hayek page. That would be analagous to this new passage. Sam and Christofurio have illustrated their concept of "NPOV" remarkably well I think. Grant65 (Talk) 01:30, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I submit that I cease struggling with this addition. It dawned upon me that it perfectly shows the brain damage of the "critics". Mikkalai 03:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good to see the depth of your commitment to civility. --Christofurio 16:27, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

As opposed to those brilliant Communist theorists (whose favored states only collapsed due to imperialist pressure) Trey Stone 03:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marx had no chance to favor communist Mongolia and China (which is going to kick someone's ass yet). Mikkalai 03:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Communist in political structure, reformist in economic structure. Trey Stone 04:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since we're on the subject, as communism is fundamentally an economic system, and less than 50% of the Chinese economy is owned by the state — a smaller proportion than in many OECD countries in the 1970s — China isn't even socialist, let alone communist any more. But maybe it will be again. For the moment it's a capitalist dictatorship of the neo-bourgeoisie ;-) Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

And oh, some bright kiddo wrote in comments: revert to Spade. punishment is not an intrinsic part of communist ideology. I guess in his study of communist ideology he didn't reach the chapter about dictatorship of the proletariat yet. Mikkalai

Perhaps that was written in response to whomever wrote this inanity "Lacking economic interests, there are two other major incentives: fear of punishment (as in slavery) and common benevolence of people (which is disputable)." I'm not sure what system or ideology was being talked about, but it was apparently written by a person unfamiliar with power, sex, status or any other of the basis of freshman psych, advertising or anthropology.--Silverback 05:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Sex as driving force of economic development! Dare to write a wikiarticle on this? Mikkalai 06:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LOL Grant65 (Talk) 08:09, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a language barrier, you brought up non-economic incentives, or did you mean something different by "lacking economic interests". Your concept, whatever it was, was not stated very clearly in english, although you apparently don't see that.--Silverback 08:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You got me here. I was trying to correct the phrase "that it would remove incentives necessary for productivity". As you pointed out himself, there are plenty of various incentives, and it is ridiculous to think that communism removed all of them. You are so involved in proving that I am wrong that you don't see that the phrasing lacks merit, to say it civilisedly. But like I said, I will no longer edit this piece, an example of brain damage of critics. Mikkalai 18:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The slavemasters whip

Please see Talk:Communism#Human_nature. This ridiculous false dicotomy between "fear of the whip" and "common benevolence" (what the heck is that?) as forms of incentives is insane. Please look up reinforcement, Operant conditioning, and economics. Fear of punishment is not a major factor in the economies of the west (outside of prison, perhaps), and I think its easier to describe say.. Pol Pots communism as having been a slavery-based economy than even the pre-civil war united states south (even ancient egypt or feudalism had alot more to the economy than fear as an incentive, and not only financialy). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 08:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you on about? And what does it have to do with exogenous, anachronistic and hostile RCT concepts/jargon being used in an article about communism? Grant65 (Talk) 10:02, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

There was no dichotomy. Even less it was applied to the modern West. These were examples of other possible incentives, in addition to economic. The sole problem is my bad command of English. Sorry for confusion. Next time when dealing with complicated issues I will begin with a proposal at the talk page. Mikkalai 18:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear what I'm on about, and it has nothing to do w anything "exogenous (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exogenous)" ;). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 17:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Human nature

To such objections, communists reply that human nature is misrepresented by capitalists. For example, under slavery, slave owners said blacks were lazy and stupid and that whippings were necessary for productivity. Thus, communists say under what they consider capitalist wage slavery, that the same type of arguments are made as an excuse for the capitalists to expropriate surplus value from workers. This fails to take into account the role of reinforcers in Behavioral psychology, and confuses punishing reinforcers (whippings) with positive reinforcers (money).

I think starvation could be considered a punishing reinforcer. The slavemaster never threatened to starve his property. And wouldn't the food and shelter provided to the slave be a positive reinforcer just as money to buy food and shelter be to the wage slave? If capitalism was all positive reinforcers, the enclosure of the commons would never have been necessary. Ruy Lopez 19:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I pointed out the weakness of this section, but decided since it was such a poor argument that it was likely not verifiable, and was probably just an idea one of the editors had. If someone can cite it, they can feel free to restore it. My critique based on behavioural psychology certainly will be finding its way back into the text, as lack of proper incentive (positive reinforcement) is one of the more glaring logical errors of Communism (right up there with atheism). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, you are most welcome to re-insert that famous Straw man into the article. But rest assured that I will also insert the 4 different communist refutations of it (yes, that argument is flawed in four different ways, and one of the counter-arguments mentions the fact that communism does, in fact, offer positive reinforcement to the people participating in it - while also relying on human rationality). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

?how is human psychology a straw man? And how does communism reward superior performance? Isn't that in contridiction to "to each according to his need"? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Sam, "superior performance" was both needed and rewarded in the Soviet/Maoist-type systems because they started from low bases of economic development. A corollary of this is that those underdeveloped societies were never communist in the sense that Marx himself understood communism. The societies which Marx actualy had in mind were the most developed countries. (The reasons why the first successful revolutions did not occur in the developed nations are a whole different debate.) Although all basic needs, and a wide range of consumer goods/services, would be available in a truly communist society, achievers would still be rewarded by accolades/ fame/etc. Of course some people always want more of any material thing than they can ever use, but as Engels said, in the higher phase of communism, they would simply be "laughed at". (Presumably because of the operant conditioning of communism *LOL*) I know it's hard to get your head around the idea that we already live in a state of abundance, albeit one scrambled and disfigured by (economic) class relations, but I suggest you think about it.Grant65 (Talk) 10:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your reply is nonsensical. We live in a state of abundance because we have a powerful economic base, derived from capitalism. I am in Germany, and while the country on the whole is well off, the eastern half had (and still has) a serious disadvantage due to having been ruined by communism. And if Marxism supplies "operant conditioning" of "fame" instead of cash rewards, why were even ballerina’s and Olympic athletes (positions rewarded largely by fame in the west) especially well paid in communism, while "collective" farm laborers were periodically starved to death w artificial famines regardless of how hard they worked, often on the very land which had been stolen from them by the "egalitarianism" of communism. I think that’s the sort of fame they would have preferred to do without, and has little to do with either business psychology or operant conditioning. 10 pounds of propaganda doesn't buy you one pound of bread. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I must disagree with both of you, we live in a time of scarcity. Demand for goods and services would be much higher if the prices were set to zero, and assuming the supply would be insufficient at that price, what goods and services were available would have to be rationed by some other means.--Silverback 10:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. First, scarcity and abundance are relative. Second, economics is all about the allocation of resources.Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

It is about the allocation of scarce resources. "Abundant" resources in the economic sense, don't need to be allocated.--Silverback 12:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And your point is? BTW, do you mind not inserting your responses in the middle of other people's posts? IMO it makes the page hard to read.Grant65 (Talk) 13:09, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

My point economists are concerned with scarcity, if something must be allocated it is still scarce, even if some consider it relatively abundant. It is part of the basic definition of modern economics and price theory. BTW, I don't mind not inserting, but I disagree and find it more a more readable way to respond to particular points in multi-paragraph passages, since the response can be put immediately after the point. But as we have just illustrated, the value of that is subjective, you find it less valuable even though it took me more labor to produce.--Silverback 17:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the DDR was never communist in any meaningful sense, because the system there was exogenous ;-), i.e. it existed because of a lot of men wearing fur hats, carrying burpguns. Unless, that is, you think the KPD would have won a free election, or been swept to power in a proletarian revolution in East Germany in, say, 1946 without the Soviet presence? No, I thought not. Grant65 (Talk) 11:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We do not live in a time of scarcity. The major problem capitalism has is overproduction (what some call underconsumption, which is a different side of the same coin). This is not a wacky left-wing theory, pretty much everyone agrees with this as it is so blindingly obvious, although the *causes* are disputed.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... Jack, what’s your take on when this economy is going to turn around?

WELCH: I think that you have a telecom shut down, you have a high tech slowdown, you have a lot of capacity. So you got weak pricing power.... You’ve got globalization. You’ve got global capacity everywhere...There are plants all over China that just built 20 million things that are coming in to this or that, so pricing pressure is what we’re facing. The reason why jobs are tough is not volume. The reason why jobs are tough is there’s no profitability.

luke} A lot of people think that human nature is inherantly greedy and that is the main arguement that communism can't work. i disagree, human nature can change. i refuse to believe that the British binge drinking or the US gun crime cultures are there forever and cannot change. Lenin turned the entire russian anti-semitic attitudes around in a few short revolutionary years, unfortunately Stalin reverted to it back.

-- former GE CEO Jack Welch on Hardball[1] (http://www.msnbc.com/news/834023.asp?cp1=1)

The economists' notion of scarcity has nothing to do one way or another with the sort of over-production that Welch was talking about there. Your confusion is also indicated by the phrase "time of scarcity". Nobody maintains that the early 21st century is uniquely a time of scarcity -- the point rather, is that every time has been a time of scarcity, because demands are capable of infinite expansion, supplies are not. --68.9.148.204 16:09, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

communism and economics

The basic criticism that it would be impossible to plan a communist society is fine. Someone wants it here, and it belongs here.

Nonetheless, it is replete with a total lack of understanding of Marxism, communism and so forth. These critics of communism know next-to-nothing about Marxism or communism, as I have stated before.

The second and third sentences are: "Theoretically, in a market system, scarce skills and resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands. Without an efficient market system, prices can send the wrong signals to consumers and planners, resulting in decisions that don't reflect the choices they would make if they knew the actual costs and competing demands for those resources."

First of all the idea that "scarce...resources are rationed by prices that reflect relative scarcity of the resources and competing demands" pertains to the capitalist system, not the "market" system. If one looks at the life of a commodity as production -> exchange -> consumption, how is the exchange/market system of the USSR different than the US? A worker goes into a store and exchanges rubles (or dollars) for a loaf of bread. They are both market systems (of course, it should go without saying that the USSR socialist system would be different than a communist system).

Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Regards, the USSR, the difference is how the price is set, when prices are set artificially low resources are wasted, such as demand being so high that people have to spend considerable time in queues and the supply running out before all demand is satisfied. Another example was the price of clothing being set so low for new clothing that consumers used them as rags for cleaning autos or floors, since unimproved fabric was not any cheaper, and the clothing price did not reflect the resources used to improve the fabric.--Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Being that "economics" is a word invented by right-leaning people in the field studying what everyone at one time called political economy, in a narrow sense economics is the idea that the study of (political) economy is the study of the allocation of scarce resources. However, economics is more often used in the broader sense. Probably the best question I could ask that would show your first sentence ("Economics itself is the study of the allocation of scarce resources") is incorrect is this - what was economics the study of prior to the publication of Gossen's work in 1854? Because absolutely no one was studying the "allocation of scarce resources" prior to that.

How is prices being set too low or too high different in the USSR and the US? I read the Wall Street Journal Tuesday morning and it said Wal-Mart had said it set prices too high in the last month. So setting the price too high in the US or USSR was the same thing (of course, the word price had slightly different meanings in different economies). No one would disagree that errors are made and capitalist or socialist systems sometimes misprice something. Another example would be a computer error pricing a gallon of milk at 10 cents in a supermarket. And socialist economies made errors like this as well. But I think we are talking about systematic problems during normal operations here, not the occasional error that pops up.

You neglect the point, the problems I pointed out were an imbalance of supply and demand because the communist system set the price with some other goal in mind than balancing the two. The pricing errors of Walmart resulted in lost business and oversupply for their prices, they responded by lowering the price and altering their supply. In a communist system which sets prices by the labor theory of value, (not that the USSR did that), there could be an imbalance between supply and demand even though the price was set correctly according to the theory, therefore there is no correction to be made, fixing the problem by changing the price would be switching to a different theory of value.--Silverback 12:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the communist point of view, there is no such thing as the setting of a price. A price is known the minute the producer is finished creating the commodity, the price is the number of homogeneous necessary labor hours are congealed in the commodity. You can't "mis-price" something systematically, since there is no such thing as mispricing, really. You can produce a "commodity" that no one wants however. There can't be an imbalance between supply and demand since every exchange is equal, there can only be commodities produced that no one wants - something that happens in capitalism as well.

In fact, this would be less of a problem in a socialist/communist economy. In a capitalist economy, capitalists compete to sell commodities which people don't want. It's like musical chairs - there are more commodities produced than buyers. This is not a problem in socialist and communist economies, nothing creates conditions which would lead to overproduction. Without this competition, there can be more cooperation and more planning coordinating production for exchange (or in communism production for need). Ruy Lopez 13:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course, I think you may be implying another point about how prices act as triggers. But you didn't say so, so I responded to what you said.

As I said earlier, I think a lot of people here know little of these subjects. The idea that economics is the study of the allocation of scarce resources didn't even begin to arise until 1854. Prior to that, another theory reigned, and many people still believe the original theory, not the new STV/marginalist one. It seems to me that a lot of people here don't disagree with the original theory, they don't even know it existed or the history of the theories that they themselves are describing. I feel my knowledge of these fields is inadequate, but several Wikipedia contributors on this page and others seem to know less about this than what even I. Ruy Lopez 10:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, that this is how capitalist systems works is just of one various competing theories. Of course, it is the one capitalists within the capitalists system prefer (although not necessarily workers). The early bourgeois economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo etc. certainly did not believe this, and in fact shared Marx's view that value came from labor, that prices were determined by labor time and so forth. In fact, this was the accepted view when Marx began his studies and Marx agreed with it. There really was no argument against this until Hermann Heinrich Gossen published The Development of the Laws of Exchange among Men and of the Consequent Rules of Human Action, the ideas of which were fleshed out by the subjective theory of value school (marginalists). In fact, Marxism (and all of classical economics prior to HH Gossen and friends) is counterposed to this new theory of value.

Anyhow, that's just the second and third sentence. As I said, the basic ideas of this section are fine, the criticism that communism is not plannable, but STV (marginalists) ideas are just that - ideas, theories, not fact and should be marked as such. So I will be rewriting this section. Ruy Lopez 09:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be helpful if you would explain how communist planning is done on a large scale without a state, how consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized, etc. I've no problem with you labeling the criticism as theory, albeit, a well developed theory that is able to explain a lot of the behavior of prices, consumers and suppliers as well as the problems and inefficiencies that sometimes occur. In your rewrite it would help if you could criticize communism from each of what you see as the competing theories of capitalism, so we can evaluate their perspectives. --Silverback 10:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Marx said he did not write recipes for cookshops of the future, and communists generally do not spell out or dictate how things would be done in the future. However, in the past and present communists can point to existing models of say large scale planning, like the creation of the Linux operating system (the original author of which had a father who was a prominent communist). So-called primitive communist societies are other examples, as are things like Amish barn-raisings and so forth.

I've been more interested in what I would call misstatements about capitalism, or theories about capitalism which I do not share. Consumer preferences are evaluated and prioritized in a capitalist economy as in a socialist economy - a product that can't be exchanged is not a commodity. Production decision makers in a capitalist economy and socialist economy would draw the same conclusions from the same data. STV/marginalism is certainly a well-developed theory. Anti-capitalists perceive many holes in it though. For example, the theory of marginal utility was developed to explain prices. Except prices are what display what the marginal utility of a commodity are. This is tautological - marginal utility explains prices which explain what the marginal utility of something is which is reflected in its price and so on and so forth. There are other holes in the theory which I won't go into at the moment, as they'd take some time to explain.

For example, from the anti-capitalist view, if inflation, the value of gold whatnot remains stable, then the price of a commodity is obvious. A capitalist should know exactly what the price of a commodity is upon production without any guesswork as it is very obvious. The *only* thing he doesn't know is if it will sell (e.g. be exchanged) or not. The idea that the commodity would be put on the market and the price raised or lowered "according to the market" is seen as laughable by anti-capitalists. It is a completely different theory about how production and markets work. Ruy Lopez 11:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, the first paragraph is fairly straightforward, but the next three paragraphs having to do with the skyscraper are vague and make little sense. It is about how in capitalism, a skyscraper can be planned better than in communism. There are three paragraphs leading up to an argument and then - no argument. The last paragraph is leading up to this non-existent argument: "Critics contend that the implementation of communism in the sense described above would involve supplanting precisely these market and contract conditions that make planning possible. It would be planning instead of haggling, rather than planning within the context of haggling. That is what they contend is not practicable." OK, we have an example of a skyscraper, a description of how capitalists build a skyscraper and then a simple assertion that STVers don't think communists could build a skyscraper. The reason why is not given.

I know Amish people get together and do barn-raisings in basically a communist manner - each gives according to ability and each gets according to need. Of course, a skyscraper is more complex than a barn, but if one looks back 75 years, the tallest "skyscraper" in the world was less than 800 feet high, and most of what has enabled taller buildings to be built have been advances in engineering, and the factors leading to one wanting to go to the trouble of building such a large building. Beyond the architect, building a skyscraper is not that complex - you build a floor, then build another floor, and just keep going up. Nonetheless, all of this is more of an opinion than a reason. I see no argument made here. Ruy Lopez 10:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Criticism Comes From Critics

I'm responsible for the skyscraper example -- inspired by a dialogue with Mihnea on another article's talk page. The point, here, isn't that communists can't make one, but that the when and where of that resource allocation would be arbitrary and likely misdirected in the absense of market signals. (I would expect that the Amish anarcho-communist barn raisings respond to less formal signals than either a central planners' or a capitalistic skyscraper. The informality is affordable, because a barn is fairly easy to dismantle, the wood can be re-used elsewhere. Dismantling a skyscraper is a different matter.) Of course, communists might take the Stakhanovite approach -- "the more skyscrapers, the better, because it embodies our labor," -- and end up with empty buildings blotting out the sky and a shortage of steel, etc. that would have been very useful elsewhere. When you change the subject and start talking about diamond prices you've lost me. That's releant to articles about the labor theory of value, etc. -- here we're simply trying to state a common objection to communism to make this article complete.

Of course, planners might do a survey to find out whether there is enough demand for office space in a certain location to put a skyscraper there. But that concedes the point that its value comes from that demand, not from congealed labor -- and the survey data make more sense within a price system which includes comparative rents, etc., than in the absense of such signals anyway, which of course is the point. --Christofurio 16:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Why is everyone saying I am changing the subject to diamonds, I am not the one who mentioned scarce resources.

I am glad of the point you made in the second paragraph as I have to explain less now. I would actually prefer to use the example of a cruise ship to a skyscraper as I feel it is simpler and less confusing, but I'll stick with the skyscraper example for now. Yes, lets say the planners would do a survey and see there was enough demand for office space. Let's even say that the skyscraper builders even got people to agree to pay them when the skyscraper was delivered. Of course the object has to be in demand, I've already said that. I don't think you understand LTV, this is in Capital Volume I, Chapter I. A commodity is not a commodity unless it is exchanged, and it won't be exchanged unless there is a demand for it. I can go into my room and paint a bad painting all day, and if no one wanted to buy it it would not be a commodity, it would just be something I worked on for myself (which no one wanted). Work people do for themselves, and not for exchange, is not a commodity. If I knit myself a sweater, I have not made a commodity as I've done it for my own use. If no one wants the skyscraper, it is not a commodity, it was something people built for fun or whatever. If people want it, then it is a commodity.

Communists think prices simply mask the homogeneous necessary labor time congealed in a commodity. So a price comparison in many ways is comparing a skyscraper or ship that takes 10,000 man-hours or person-hours to build, to a skyscraper or ship that takes 11,000 person-hours to build. The latter one would obviously be priced more. And if one is a William Levitt type who puts down buildings one after the other after the other, one has a pretty good idea what the homogenous necessary labor time to build such a building is ahead of time. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand the LTV very well. I don't think there's any reason to prove that to you, because the point here is simply to include a fair statement of a historically important objection to communism. You keep saying you don't want it to be here because it comes from the adversaries of communism. Of couse it does! And if you look at the "criticism" section of the article on anarcho-capitalism you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of that view. If you look at the "criticism" section of the articles on Darwinian evolution, you'll see material that comes from the adversaries of those views. And so forth. That is what a criticism section is for.

The claim that prices have information value concerns prices specifically. To the extent Marxists mean something else by "value" then "price," then they aren't really contradicting this point. Whatever you may want to say about value, price comes largely from market demand -- and that fact implies that it carries information about market demand. You say "communists think" differently. Okay. Most of the article is devoted to how communists think. Why should there not be, as there is elsewhere, a section for how the critics of communism think. Why is it an objection to any view on either side to say that communists and non-communists don't think the same way?

A few words more about skyscrapers. The problem I raised isn't the possibility that people would build a skyscraper for fun. It is the question of knowing whether the use of resources for this purpose rather than some other is optimal. You say nothing that gives me any reason to believe there is an alternative to a pricing system that would do this better. Any survey that would make any sense would be set against a background pricing system. Likewise with Levittown. The GIs came home to America after the war and wanted to get married, have kids, 'settle down' as the saying went. The building boom fed off such demand, and the housing prices that came about as a result thereof.

There was also statist interference in various ways. If we find Levittown to be a sub-optimal use of resources, I suggest that we might look at the planning implied in that interference. --Christofurio 13:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I don't recall objecting to the inclusion of any criticism except in the case where communism is confused with a socialist state. Other than that, I have simply pointed out criticisms were in the wrong sub-sections of the criticism section.

It wasn't, though. I was making various points in the human nature section because limits to rationality are as much an issue about human nature. Also, to the extent communism is supposed to be arrived at through a socialist route -- criticizing one is criticizing the other, and the distinction is pointless. Also, yopu've interpolated statements into every effort to state the Austrian criticism of communism in order to distract from any effort to get it fairly stated.

Suppose, for purposes of comparison, we were writing a passage about criticisms of Darwinism. I might write, "There are defenders of the views of Larmark, who believe that acquired characteristics can be inherited." Would it be fair for you to change that to this? "There are, though Darwinians disagree, defenders of the view of Larmark, with whom Darwinians disagree, who believe although Darwinians disagree that acquired characteristics can be inherited, although Darwinians disagree." Does that sound NPOV? AT what point are such continued interruptions of a point simply to state and restate and re-restate the mere fact of disagreement an unfair undermining of an effort to make a point that ought to be made? Frankly, I believe there is such a point and you have crossed it. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Price does not carry information about market demand, only exchange carries information about market demand. Price contains no information, the only case you can make for that is a price of zero contains information versus a non-zero price (from a 5 cent stick of gum to a million dollar house). Price is just a convulted method of expressing homoegenous necessary labor

time congealed in a commodity.

You are right in a sense about exchange, perhaps however, you were missing the implicit sense of prices as market prices set by exchanges in the market, not just the arbitrary price that someone might be asking or offering. The market price does carry information about demand. Of course. illiquid and non-commodity markets are less informative. But setting prices on labor alone will lead to very uneconomic decisions and lower levels of individual satisfaction, and less optimal macro-economic results in terms of gross product and efficiency. You would be wasting the medium of exchange (money) as a surrogate for measuring and assessing total resources, labor, and relative demand for them in informing individual distributed decision making. --Silverback 01:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not miss the idea that prices are set by exchange, I just disagree with it. The value of something is set the moment the commodity is finished being produced. The only question then is whether or not it is exchangable with something of equal value. If it's not, its not a commodity. It is just a completely different theory. In the Marxian theory, uneconomic decisions and sub-optimal macro-economic results come from a variety of sources, including capitalism's need to manufacture commodities which will not be exchangable. As I said, this actually isn't totally a Marxian theory, even GE CEO Jack Welch and many others have conceded this, or at least conceded all of the observations that would lead one to this conclusion. As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that? That's a very, very tenuous hypothesis as there is no way of measuring it, it is just based on a hypothesis from the conclusions of the other theory. And again, in your theory you claim prices somehow magically contain information on resources, labor and relative demand, but of course, you're unable to separate them into components since only the invisible hand of the marketplace knows. Marxian theory dispels with such mysticism - it deals just with what is known - will the commodity be exchangable? How much labor time went into creating the commodity? Natural resources have no value other than the labor-time congealed in them during extraction. I understand the STV/marginal theory, the older theory, which Marx subscribed to, simply disagrees with it. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You don't "understand" it if you need to characterize it as "magical". The market price of something is the price at whichit is being exchanged or exchangeable. You are making a pointless distinction. You seem to object to the significance of exchange prices on the grounds that they involve only a "binary decision" along the lines accept/reject. But ... so what? Digital computers work on the basis of binary on/off switches. Enough binary choices and one has a calculation -- and a result that carries information. What is "magical" about this? That you don't like it, I accept. But you make negative characterizations about its being "magic" and "mysticism" which turns out to be just new ways of restating the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the information-carrying significance of prices. Exchanged prices, of course. --Christofurio 19:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as the use of resources, due to the nature of our economic system, the only way of knowing whether the use of the resource of labor-time is "optimal" or not is whether the commodity made with the labor-time is exchangable. I don't even think the word optimal is that great - optimal implies different levels of something whereas there is only one arbiter - exchange. An ounce of gold can be exchanged for 450 dollars, or 425 euros, but one is not more optimal than the other, they are all equivalent to one another. Ruy Lopez 01:09, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is the beauty of it, you don't have to rely on one arbiter, or even know whether it is optimal overall, in a market, individuals just need to perform their local optimizations according to their local goals, local information and the market information given by market prices. Perhaps there is some global optimum that is not achieved through such local optimization techniques, but at least whatever optimum that is achieved reflects the individuals values as expressed by their real willingness to exchange resources for them and not some enforced agreement or theorectical consensus where the individual did little more than express a preference in a poll.--Silverback 01:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about markets? What is the difference between the central committee of the CPSU setting grain production quotas and the management of ADM setting grain production quotas, the grain being made into a bread which goes to the market which is exchanged for dollars or rubles and then consumed? The only difference is in the method of production control - in capitalism, corporate bureaucrats make almost all production decisions, in USSR socialism, CPSU bureaucrats made almost all production decisions.

The USSR had markets too, where do you think workers went to buy bread, shirts and such things? The local market.

Interesting point. Workers didn't simply distribute bread to one another, they went to the market to buy it with rubles. Any justification for that practice is also a justification for the opening of stock and bond exchanges, too. --Christofurio 20:31, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

As far as market information given by market prices, there is only a binary piece of information, which I wouldn't even call price, but whether a commodity was exchangable with a commodity of equal value.

Again, you seem to see some significance in what you do or don't want to "call" things. If you offer me a euro for this doohicky, and I agree, then we have established an exchange price for the doohicky. That is, as you say, a "binary piece of information." It is also a price. Prices = information. Why do you need to stir up so much confusion about that simple point? There might be a lot of reasons why we agreed on one euro. Some of them involve supply and some involve demand. Both sets of reasons involve other prices, and alternatives each of us had in other markets. The price of the doohicky is part of that broader system. This is not a theory, it is a simply fact.

Anyhow, as I said before, these are two different theories. At a certain point one reaches diminishing returns discussing this, we're both simply restating over and over the differences between the LTV and STV theories. Ruy Lopez 13:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Diamonds are a switch of subject in the way that you invoked them, because you're simply changing the subject to LTV, which is another way of saying, "communists think differently from their critics." Yes -- in general anyone who believes in X thinks differently from the critics of X. So? In an article about Xism, one ought to include a fair statement of the difference, and not keep interrupting that statement with distractions such as ... "but of course, Xists disagree with these disagreements with X"! --Christofurio 14:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I found the switch to diamonds in the article particularly troubling, because they are not as scarce as believed, and take relatively little labor to produce (about $2 per carat) and have been artificially made scarce by a cartel. I'd like to find a different example of a utilitarian good that takes little labor to produce, but that consumes a scarce resource or material that has competing alternate uses, in order to illustrate how a labor theory of value price would lead to uneconomic decision making by consumers because the scarcity is not reflected in the price nor is the opportunity cost of alternate uses of the scarce material.--Silverback 17:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What "switch"? I have given an example of a scarce resource, (finely) cut large diamonds. What was the previous example this was switched from? What was the scarce resource example you are saying this was switched from because I don't see it. Finely cut diamonds with many carats are not $2 per carat, if you can buy at those prices please tell me because I'll be glaf to pay you double or triple. I am talking about the entire labor process, not just the guy who drives the truck to the jewelery store. I think diamonds are a good example but I'll entertain other ones (gold?) It's not for me to think up your examples for you. Ruy Lopez 11:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism requires Atheism?

Isn't that true? I thought atheism was a common denominator. All this talk about early christian / amish / shaker communism-like activities makes my head spin. What's the deal? I thought religion was the opiate of the masses and we were to find our solace in praying to Marx or some such ;) Maybe Juche?

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why should communism require atheism? Sure, the various Marxist strains have been pretty anti-clerical, but common ownership of the means of production is clearly a much older idea. Grant65 (Talk) 12:16, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

OK then, you are suggesting Communism can be divorced of Marx entirely? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communism and communist experiments existed before Marx and, in fact, before Marx most experiments with communism were of a religious nature, particularly among Christians. AndyL 12:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well thats a bit of a hat flipper, since I favor communal sharing in a religious setting, and to some extent among other NGO's. But that doesn't make me a commie, does it? :S

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One might take you more seriously if you didnt' use words like "commie". I doubt anyone would take an editor of the Christinaity article very seriously if he or she kept referring to Christians as "Jesus freaks". Anyway, there's quite a lot of evidence that Jesus was a communist while there's absolutely no evidence that he was a capitalist;) See the stub Religious communism as well as Christian socialism and social gospel .AndyL 21:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus probably did participate in markets as a carpenter, and his objection to money changers had more to do with inappropriate location (the temple). Perhaps, he can serve as a good example of tolerance to other communists, since he eschewed a state christianity, not seeking to overthrow the Roman empire (render unto Caesar...) but advocating a more bottom up, personal morality approach. --Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All successful communist societies have had a religious basis. They have been of moderate size, from a few hundred to a few thousand members. Their religious basis has varied from radical interpretations of Christianity such as Oneida Community to quite fundamentalist and conservative such as the Shakers of Ann Lee, many were based on German pietism. These communities were very prosperous and were the envy of their less-favored neighbors [2] (http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/Versluis.html). Secular efforts to imitate them such as New Harmony were unsuccessful. Fred Bauder 14:17, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

why just start at a few hundred, the church itself has been described as a family of family and perhaps communism starts even smaller, "whenever three or more are gathered in his name". Variants of the altruism meme have some persuasive power, perhaps because of the altruism "gene". I still think they break down and become virulent with size, large churches become cults, adopt rigid virulence, or split. Perhaps communism requires community and community has its size limits.--Silverback 00:31, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Anthropologists postulate all societies were communist prior to about 4000 B.C.E. One thing which is self-apparent is that a society with no surplus must be communist. In other words, if I have to spend all day working just to feed myself, with nothing left over in surplus (or "profit"), I obviously live in a communist society. There is nothing left over to supply a slave-master, feudal lord or capitalist. Ruy Lopez 00:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, the first signs of surplus predate 4000 B.C.E., there is evidence of art, ornament, ritual, hierarchy and status, tools refined beyond mere satisficing in the archeological evidence of pre-history. Some of these signs of surplus have been proposed as defining of modern humans and are assumed exist, even before the better preserved technologies developed.--Silverback 00:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say 4000 BCE, I said about 4000 BCE. Around 4000 BCE, societies shifted to agriculture from being more-or-less hunter-gatherers. This created a steady surplus, which allowed for the possibility of the existence of a class that did not need to do work. Ruy Lopez 12:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course communism doesn't require atheism. Intrigue 00:34, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ruy didn't like my earlier changes to the "Other forms of communism" section, likely because it was POV. I have now corrected my wording and feel it is now NPOV. Wikipedia says that we should be writing NPOV material, that is, we should try to show different sides of an issue, not cover up opposing views. So Ruy, although you are a communist, you have to play by Wikipedia rules. You cannot cover up a belief held by many Christians that opposes the "Jesus was a communist" theory. Besides, you are not religious, how could you even try to say that this belief is unsound, illogical, or untrue? You may disagree with this position but you cannot (according to Wikipedia rules) revert my edits whenever you get a chance. Correct them if they seem too POV for you, but don't cover them up by reverting them every time. How about some dialogue before you revert them next time, huh? Think NPOV Ruy.Gaytan 22:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All Communist states (perhaps there are a few exceptions) have been atheist, yes. Recall Marx describing religion as a pointless distraction from "revolution." J. Parker Stone 01:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ruy states: "As far as "lower levels of individual satisfaction" - what? This is ridiculous. What barometer are you using to measure that?"

The barometer is exchanges at prices that reflect supply and demand. If a person chooses to exchange x which he has for y in the market place, it is assumed in economics that he considers himself better off. The assumption may not be valid if the person is stupid or lacks information about the goods being exchanged and needs big brother to make the decisons for him to achieve happiness. But the core of economics gives the individual a little credit for having better information about his own preferences and what would satify him than others making the decison for him would. This is the reason both sides in an exchange usually say "thank you", otherwise they would be making the exchange, since if the goods were of equal value to each they would not make the exhange since the transaction cost would make them better off with their status quo. Furthermore, if a person has a medium of exchange like money and the market has many goods which he could exchange it for, his purchase of x instead of y or z, displays his preference and satisfies him more than making the other choices or no exchange at all. Perhaps you don't accept this economic assumption, it depends on whether you give individuals a little credit for being able to autonomously make their own decisions.

In a communist mass society, where prices are set by the labor theory of value, people will respond the same way to price signals, if those signals don't also reflect the rarity of materials or the demand of them for higher uses for example, the fact that silver's value should reflect its usefulness in electronics and photography, what is to prevent it from all being used up for silverware. When prices do reflect demand, silver will go to where it will produce the most economic value, because uses that produce more value will be able to bid more for it. Note that a market system, also values less utilitarian things, such as silverware, but those who value it, had to value it more than others, since they had to value it enough to bid it away from other uses. Perhaps a person is stupid for valuing a silver spoon more than a radio, or film, but that is the subjective nature of value. Markets and prices tend to allocate things to achieve greater overall satisfaction and efficiency, at least where, information costs, transaction costs and externalities are low.--Silverback 00:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

??? I don't know where to start with this! As a piece of 'market-advocacy' it is an interesting perspective, but it is not an NPOV treatment of the subject. Intrigue 15:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, you might start by reading some micro-economics and price theory. Perhaps market economics is a POV subject, but even so, its theory of price, efficiency, and even problems have been fleshed out and practiced, much more than whatever the communist equivilent would be in a mass society that had a minimal or limited state. Until that is worked, perhaps communes had best interact with the world as basic survival units (BSUs) within existing free market societies. The can price their goods as they wish, and participate in markets exchanging with other BSUs such as individuals, families, state sanctioned limited liability corporations (they can't exist without state sanction, so should be thought of as part of the state), etc. Of course, when participating in the markets, they might find the prices quite different, but arbitragers will step in to reduce any inbalances.--Silverback 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point of view, but it's far from fact. Intrigue 03:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting response, I mentioned a theory from an established field and then I mention a proposal for how communes might co-exist and operate within a market economy and you respond with "it's far from fact". Frankly, you aren't passing the Turing Test.--Silverback 04:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's because I am a PHP script. It's fine to quote this as a theory, and reference who thinks it, it is just that presenting it as uncontested fact is not ok. Beep beep. Intrigue 20:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a robustly confirmed theory, I suppose you think the theories of evolution and relativity should have to be presented the same way. It would be a herculean task to present all the supporters of these theories, and the list of contesters, would either be some crackpots, or some bleeding edge tweakers who really accept the theory as 90+% right.--Silverback 00:50, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, we do reference who proposes these theories, and they are a lot easier to agree on than theories about 'levels of individual satisfaction'. I certainly don't think that this theory has 90% acceptance among any reasonable group of people. I'm disturbed by your reluctance to reference it if it really is that mainstream, I'm certainly not asking for every proponent, just one or two notable ones. Intrigue 02:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are not many universities without microeconomics and price theory courses.--Silverback 02:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then you should have no problems attributing this theory to some published authors. Intrigue 19:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I wouldn't. I would just pick a broadly distributed comprehensive text, such as Exchange and Production: Theory in Use by Alchian & Allen., that way I wouldn't have to make a Darwin or Dawkin's type of choice. --Silverback 12:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement - the theory will be referenced in the article as one advanced by these people (among others)? Intrigue 18:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, there is a lot of unreferenced material in the article. The culture on the this page seems to be to achieve balance in unreferenced material. In this type of culture, if certain info, is seriously challenged, as patently false or illogical or nonsensisical then there might be a specific request or challenge to document it. We give each other space here, people present their arguments and the reader has the burden of weighing whether they make sense or not. For instance, in the human nature section, there is a poor example of "altruistic" human behavior, the mother caring for the child, which is universal mammalian behavior and which evolutionary theory never had any problem explaining. Certain risky behaviors in situations where the genetic relationship was more distant or less certain is where the research was grappling with. And the idea the capitalism suppresses altruism and communism might release these bonds is speculation bordering on nonsense. However, I credit the reader with being able to detect what might have rigor behind it and what does not. Now if you want to go through the article with a fine tooth comb, and find things you can challenge with credible and on-point references you will be a formidible contributer and closer to passing the turing test. However, such rigor might disturb the communitarian peacefulness of the communism page. 8-) --Silverback 19:05, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unreferenced or not, I think everyone understands the idea of an open market. However, the unproven part is whether market price-setting actually does result in higher levels of individual satisfaction. Why would it not? Simply because market forces rely on relatively short-term vision and are not coherent. Large-scale long-term projects beneficial to all are rarely initiated by market entities. Nor does the general direction of the market necessarily provide greater individual satisfaction. One might consider that if the resources invested in the perfume market (for instance) were instead allocated to general healthcare and/or dietary balance, satisfaction may very well be increased even for those individuals who would ordinarily have purchased perfume.--Csmcsm 01:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It results in higher satisfaction than the consumer started off with, since the exchanges are voluntary. This is not being compared to what some omniscient planner would do assuming he knew what was really best, it is being compared to the same consumer exchanges where instead the prices are set on the labor theory of value, prices that don't reflect the scarcity of resources or the demand for higher uses. Under the labor theory of value, the price would be the same for steel spoons as for silver spoons if their manufacturing and supply processes required the same amount of labor. Scarce resource like silver or energy, and alternate demand from higher uses such as silver in electronics or photographic plates (perhaps for X-rays) is not reflected in the price and thus not in the consumer decision. The assumption is that the consumer would make better decisions with better information, admittedly this gives the consumer credit for a little intelligence and personal knowledge of his/her own values. You view perfume as a short term decision that ignores the long term posibilities, but it may the proper longer term choice in the consumer's value system, if for instance it enables the procurement of a more fertile mate with higher quality genes (someone really, really good looking?). You talk as if noone should ever accept risks for short term pleasure, as if, in a communist society, there would be no mountain climbing, sky diving, promiscuous sexuality, jaywalking, etc. because these don't achieve some ominiscient level of satisfaction or contribute to better health care.--Silverback 05:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not answering my points (as usual). Under a market system, resources are dictated mostly by selfish individuals with short-term goals. I've accepted that a communist nation is likely to set the wrong prices with regard to individual demand. But you're not considering the downside of the free-market system: which is that commodities that are inefficient at raising individual satisfaction in general can force the price of efficient commodities to increase. To follow your example, individual demand for decorative silverware will force the cost of X-Ray plates up in a free market, despite the fact that decorative silverware is grossly inefficient in comparison at raising individual satisfaction. Why is it that capitalist nations rely on communist structures to deliver basic public goods? --Csmcsm 20:50, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said, this is a theory, and should not be presented as fact, but as a theory advanced by some (perhaps many) people. I'm baffled as to why you would not want to reference this as the opinion of some notable politcal theorists. We don't need to argue about whether it is right or wrong, just say who claims it. Intrigue 20:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Politics, economics, and psychology

While what is referred to here on the wiki as communism isn't what I think of when I hear the word (I think of State Communism, i.e. pol pot & stalin), it does seem to be an important concept. This "communalism" is actually very agreeable to me as a spiritual person, I believe strongly in altruism. Unfortunately, these altruistic sociological theories only seem to work as far as the commune, and even then only when there is a solid religious foundation, and often a charismatic leader as well. Frankly, I think the people who desire to attempt Anarcho-Communism on a grand scale, or without a focus on God, have little comprehension of economics, psychology, sociology, or... history. They forget that the shiny idealism they believe so strongly in was once shared by those radicals who led to Stalin, Pol Pot, and every form of state communism. They forget that not everyone is altruistic, and indeed, that many are violent conquerors, or simply minor parasites, looking to revel in excess at the disadvantage of others. Every time I hear someone like Noam Chomsky speak, my mind wanders to visions of Black shirts beating political opponents and forcing them to drink castor oil, Snowball being chased from the farm by dogs, and Trotsky getting stabbed with an ice pick. No matter how pretty the utopia you envision, reality will always eventually step in. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote)]] 13:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? Read some more and you can dispel your own myths and misconceptions, if you wanna stop scaring yourself over something that isn't real.--Che y Marijuana 22:02, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Communist/Socialist, is that sure?

Socialism involves public ownership of the means of production and private ownership of everything else, while communism abolishes private ownership altogether European socialdemocracy, wich can be considered socialism even if of a moderate kind, does not involves public ownership of the means of production. And I don't think that there has been even one communist regime that has completely abolited private ownership, nor Karl Marx ever proposed to do that. Before the october revolution I think that the world communist was just a synonim of revolutionary socialist. After that it was used to refer to those socialists that had embrassed Lenin's ideas and that looked at the October Revolution as their political source of inspiration. juliet.p from Italy

Blaming the Resistance for a Revolution's Violence

This is almost a cartoonishly bad argument. Summarizing and paraphrasing just a bit, we're now saying, "some of communism's critics complainthat revolutions are bloody. To this communists reply: if the establishment didn't resist the revolution, it could all be done quickly and peacefully."

Yes, and if Haile Selassie had gone along, Mussolini's takeover of his country would have been bloodless, too. Does anybody defend the general principle that resistance as such is evil because it forces aggressors to get violent?

I agree that this passage should be deleted or rewritten at least. TDC 16:52, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Deng quote

I don't understand how the Deng quote needs contextualising, or how it is POV. We are reporting the judgement of many that China has made significantly pro-capitalist economic reforms; the quote is a support of this view. Don't interpret this as a challenge; I'm just genuinely confused, and don't understand the need for reversion. In the interests of accuracy, isn't the best approach to attempt to provide necessary contextualisation? Lacrimosus 07:47, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the quotation was, "Poverty is not socialism. To be rich is glorious." Yet, the way it was inserted into the article seems to imply that Deng was dismissing communism and admitting the superiority of capitalism. Also, is his conception of what it means to be "rich" any different in China from the prevailing one in the West? One quotation, at any rate one that can be interpreted in multiple ways, does not illustrate a complicated phenomena that accompany China's development... This quotation adds nothing to the article other than confusion. (There are already links concerning Chinese economic reform that are sufficient.) Please remove it. 172 08:22, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he said it, at the time he was allowing market reforms, would indicate that he thought central planning, if not communism itself, was inhibiting wealth creation. The quote does not seem confuse any issues. If it seems a mixed message, perhaps that accurately reflects the state of affairs in the real world as well.--Silverback 02:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

True, it is a complicated phenomenon, and it would be great if someone could sufficiently articulate its causes. I disagree with the reading that it involves Deng conceding to capitalism's superiority; I interpret it it as a change of views - it wouldn't be any more true to say that Mussolini by changing his opinions conceded to the superiority of fascism. Nevertheless, I will take out the quote, it'd still be nice if knowledgeable persons/people could talk more about the development of Maoist economics in China. Lacrimosus 23:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please no revert war, I've even included a Washington Times source for you. It's a perfectly apt and reasonable quote. 172, please leave your agenda behind. Libertas

Hammer & Sickle

The article itself seems to have become much better of late in respect of not identifying communism exclusively with Leninism and the former USSR, though there is some way to go in this respect. The use of the hammer and sickle logo and its description as 'the international symbol of communism' is an example. It wouldn't be regarded as such by left communists, council communists, most Trotskyites, Anarcho-communists and other advocates of a communist society (granted it would often depend on how far you were from 1917 when you asked them). The appearance of the hammer and sickle at the top of the banner advertising the communism series of articles is likewise inappropriate, given that that series contains many articles on schools of thought that were extremely critical of, if not hostile to, the USSR. Shall we consign it to the dustbin of history? Mattley 23:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explanations for the removal of Ultramarine's text

• Opponents of communism point out that the number of people killed are more than one hundred million. And that the methods used included concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides. [[3] (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM)[4] (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html)
  • This is addresssed already in a way that avoids violating Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View with the following "...presiding over periods of repressive rule that saw tens of millions of casualties (see also Communist state)." In addition, you links have been added to the text. Further detail is found in the articles on the histories of the various Communist regimes and Communist state.
• And that they [concentration camps, mass starvation and ethnic genocides] took place in almost every communistic state.
  • This is a description of the Stalinist USSR, which saw a scale of violence and terror unseen in Communist regimes that came to power after the Second World War, such as Cuba.
• And in the Soviet Union continued even when that state was a superpower."[5] (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM)
  • The terror was abated significantly following Stalin's death, with Khrushchev's de-Stalinization. To make it clear that the USSR and other Communist governments were still nevertheless repressive single party regimes, but in a way that does not over-simplify history and violate NPOV, I added: "In the second half of the twentieth century, movements that threatened Communist Parties' monopoly on power, such Czechoslovakia's Prague Spring and China's Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, continued to be suppressed. Given these incidents and their often-violent histories, Communist Party-led regimes are often associated with human rights abuses, especially in the West."
• They also point out that every communistic state to date have been a dictatorship.
  • The text states, "Because they were governed by monopolistic parties..." Those who argue that every Communist regime has been a dictatorship base that on the fact that a single party has a monopoly on power, so this point is already addressed while following NPOV.
• Some supporters of communism claim that these states were in fact not communistic. Opponents claim that using the same argument, it is not possible to criticize capitalistic societies, as it can be claimed that apparently capitalistic states are in fact not capitalistic.
  • This is neither here nor there. They were Communist Party run states, and to dispute this would be more of a stretch than arguing that the world is flat. They were not "communistic" though (with a small "c"). Communism is a social system based on common ownership of all property, an ideal that Communist Party run regimes claim that they are attempting to realize, but one that never has been realized; and this cannot be disputed given every single definition of "communism" (small "c") available.

In all, note many of the recent additions under the "violence" section (formerly "revolutionary violence"-- broadened to include the entire span of their rule) that incorporate the topics that Ultramarine is attempting to bring to light. 172 00:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely people acknowledge that historically Communist states have held communist characteristics, even if they have not fulfilled Marx's dream of "true" communism (which, given the circumstances necessary, is utterly impossible) J. Parker Stone 01:08, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stick with standard definitions. Communism is based on common ownership of all property. Socialism is based on state ownership of the means of production. 172 03:00, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao. And that the deaths occured in almost all Communist states. However, the text is a marked ímprovement. Earler there were NO mention of the millions of killed, neither in this article or in that about Communist states. I will restore the last argument. The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property.Ultramarine 08:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Communist states certainly tried to implement the ideas of Marx and called themselves Communist. And were societes were the state owned all property. This is covered elsewhere in the article. Keep in mind that there are also articles on Communist state, Marxism, and socialism. The Communism article is the on the ideology of Communism (large "C") and communism (small "c") as a social system; and it already veers way too off topic with discussions of socialism and the political history of various Communist regimes. Re: millions continud to be killed even after Stalin and Mao Not in the Soviet Union under Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev. Not in China under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao. Perhaps you are referring to Pol Pot's rule. 172 09:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please read more history. Soviet Union [6] (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/USSR.TAB9A.GIF) China[7] (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.TAB8.1.GIF) You seem to think that facts that contradict your view of the world are POV. But they are just facts, not opinions. Calling deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation for casualties is POV. I will change the statements so that the fact are clear. Do not censor them, even if you do not like the facts. Ultramarine 14:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please do not attribute this to POV. The reverts are more the result of problems posed by your non-native English, which is leaving this section a jumbled mess. The article goes into a sufficient level of detail mentioning tens of millions of casualties. The political histories of the relevant Communist regimes can be found in articles on the History of the Soviet Union and the History of the People's Republic of China. And, yes, it is POV to deny that the terror was abated significantly in the Soviet Union and China after the deaths of Stalin and Mao, respectively. 172 02:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then change the English. Do not censor the facts. You again insist that deaths in concentration camps or due to deliberate mass starvation are casualties? You have already demonstrated your lack of historic knowledge by claiming that millions did not continue to be killed after Stalin and Mao. Keep the facts so you and others can learn. Ultramarine 04:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a historian, so you can show me all the libertarian polemics and websites that you possibly can will not have shown me anything new to me. Writing NPOV is not just a matter of inserting "opponents say," "supporters say" anywhere you can possibly fit it but rather writing specifically and precisely. Internal exile and concentration camps in Siberia long predate the Soviet Union, as do mass starvations, so they are not unique to Communist rule. Thus, I will integrate your observations of famine and starvation into the article in way that maintains proper historical writing, specifically mentioning the Gulags and the famine coinciding with collectivization. 172 06:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be very afraid to let others know that killing continued until the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, under Lenin, after Mao and in all Communist countries. Add that killings also took place in Russia before the revolution, but do not remove that they continued as long as the communists were in power. Why was there NO mention of the Gulags in the articles prior to this discussion, if you had knowledge of them? Ultramarine 07:03, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Enough with the finger-pointing. (Libertas?) I wrote only very small portions of the article; and this is not the article on the history of the soviet Union. 172 07:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I made your point again in a clear, specific way. I added that the Soviet Union and China after Stalin and Mao, respectively, continued to be single party regimes that executed political opponents of the regime, though on a far smaller scale. 172 07:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Much better now. I disagree to "casualties". Which is " a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action". And if these states were not communist, then one can similarly claim that apparently capitalist states are not capitalist. Ultramarine 07:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)