Talk:Communism/Archive 8

• Talk:Communism/Archive1

• Talk:Communism/Archive2

• Talk:Communism/Archive3

Force

All this stuff about the use of force is POV. Only the article on communism is being filled with this sort of stuff. I'm going to go and add some stuff about the "crimes of capitalism" to Capitalism and see how long it lasts. That will nicely expose the duplicity of the people who are trying to impose the POV that communism is the devil incarnate. Shorne 00:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, we are tools of the giant capitalist agenda -- or perhaps we simply understand what NPOV means far better than you.

So saying that communism involves the use of force is NPOV but saying that capitalism involves the use of force is "bullshit propaganda"? You've got to be kidding me. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do whatever bullshit propagandistic changes you'd like in the capitalism article -- I'm sure the good people there will revert them. On my part I'm gonna be removing propaganda from this articles on *my* watchlist -- your sentence "as with all others in today's world" remains a blatant piece of meaningless newspeak. All others what? I'm sure that *communistic* theory believes that are societies are founded on violence, but if you don't see that portraying the communist view of society as FACT is espousing YOUR point of view, then you are simply hopeless. Gandhi's theories also espoused violence the same way Lenin's did? Really? Are you gonna back that up with facts the implied claim that all political theories about societal reformation are equally founded on violence?

Aren't they? Do police forces not exist? Armies? Was capitalism instituted over tea and macaroons? Shorne 01:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Police forces in free nations exist to *prevent* violence, not to cause it. In peaceful nations, armies likewise exist only to defend -- unlike the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, unlike the murders at Tienamen square, all of them done in defense of communism.

This has got to be another example of your humour, but at least it is another POV. This is not to say that I don't agree with you to some extent, but clearly police are hired to use violence (when "necessary," but, again, the "necessity" is a POV with which not everyone would necessarily agree) -- in the arrest of suspects, for example, in the "control" of crowds, and in situations that are or resemble both instances they have clearly, at times, initiated violence. You can't argue with your tautology "[i]n peaceful nations, armies... exist only to defend," but it's worth noting the invasions of Grenada and Vietnam, for example, done in defense of capitalism. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or the invasions by the US of Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan, Cuba, Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Zaïre, the Soviet Union, the Philippines—need I go on?

I could point out that a great many communists condemn every one of the acts that you cited and that many would state that the murders at Tian'anmen Square (note spelling) were the act of a capitalist régime. But I might as well say it to a brick wall, for all the good it will do to stop this J-Edgar-Hooverite game of red-baiting. Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could also point whatever condemnations you'd like -- the point is that Marxism-Leninism has *violent revolution* as a part of its ideological core, and it expressly and intentionally puts no barriers on the right of the state to use violence to achieve its purposes. Liberal democracies do put very many barriers on the right of the state to use violence. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism has *violent revolution* at its core. Look at the US and France, just to name two examples.

Marxism-Leninism also has violent revolution at its core. You're quite right; no argument there. Why? Mao: "We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." If capitalism will lay down its weapons of mass destruction and politely hand power over to the communists, maybe no war will be needed. Shorne 02:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it's only communists who see the whole world division as between communism (or "socialism") and capitalism. It's only communists who treat capitalism as a *political* system, rather than an economical one. AND THAT'S BLATANT POV. Capitalism has "violent revolution" at its core? Since I believe it has no ideological core, that's only the communists belief about what capitalism entails, unlike the core of Marxism-Leninism which is accepted by *all*. Communists may say that the French and American revolutions were about the installment of capitalist governments, but the French and Americans themselves might say that those were revolutions about political freedoms instead. And you still don't get it: You keep on treating economical and political systems as if they were one and the same: namely the *communist* POV which you are trying to push on the rest of us. BUT UNLIKE MARXISM-LENINISM, CAPITALISM ISN'T UNIFIED BY ANY *ONE* POLITICAL THEORY. It only means the existence of private property and nothing more than that.

And in most of eastern Europe, the capitalistic-democratic revolts at the end of the Cold war were peaceful btw, with the exception of Romania. Aris Katsaris 19:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Liberal democracy doesn't espouse violent suppression of dissidents, no matter how you would like it to. Aris Katsaris 01:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nor does communism espouse purges and famines, however much you would like it to. Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In its Marxist-Leninist form it very definitely espouses violence against the "counter-revolutionary" forces. And communist ideology very definitely espouses the *right* of the state to do whatever it feels is necessary for the good of the "Revolution". Communism espouses violent overthrow and violent reform of society, even as much as 19th century slavery espoused the right to use whippings to keep black slaves under control. Were the purges the *point*? No, they were simply the proscribed method. Aris Katsaris 02:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prove it. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quote from Lenin. "It is impossible to remain loyal to Marxism, to the Revolution, without treating insurrection as an art." Quotes from Mao. "A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another." "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the purges? It's about revolution. Shorne 19:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No offense but with "Revolution" don't communists mean the whole process of transforming the society under their system, not just the brief period of war? Communists say for example "enemies of the Cuban Revolution" and by that they mean regime.

This demand, "Prove it", goes to the essence of the problem I and others are having with you, Shorne. We can and have proved it with respect to a number of issues. You quarrel with The Black Book of Communism, but even some critics of the sweeping generalizations that Stéphane Courtois makes in his introduction admit that the section on the Soviet Union written by Nicolas Werth is generally well researched and reliable, see the review of the book in The Journal of American History Review - Journal of American History. Terror and the use of force to gain and maintain power was a declared policy of the Soviet Union. This is amply documented in great detail in Werth's chapters on the Soviet Union. We can legitimately search for ways to attribute this information to critics; even include properly attributed denials, but the mass of information with respect to use of force more than proves it, as you put it. Although what it proves for Wikipedia purposes it that the question of use of force, which the Soviet leaders themselves referred to as terror definitely belongs in the article. Fred Bauder 13:48, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've already smashed your Black Book of Bullshit to smithereens. Users are welcome to look over the shards at Talk:Communism, Talk:Communist state, and Talk:The Black Book of Communism. I'm not going to answer the moronic comment about terror as "a declared policy of the Soviet Union" made by someone who has proved that he doesn't listen to a goddam thing that he doesn't like to hear; I have better things to do with my time. Shorne 19:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism is about selling and buying within the system, not about violent revolution as Marxism-Leninism ~has been in theory and practice. And unlike the practice of communism, almost all modern capitalistic societies allow people to declare themselves adherents of communism without fear of death, imprisonment or exile. Aris Katsaris 00:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Black Panthers? COINTELPRO? McCarthy? Chile? Brazil? Greece? Shorne 01:07, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, *sure* in capitalistic dictatorships there's as much violence as in communistic dictatorships. Which is very different from just saying "capitalism" as if it's enough. In capitalistic democracies there's not. In the last 30 years since the junta fell in Greece, the greatest amount of political violence was from the murderous terrorism of a communist-ideology group. Not from its still going strong "capitalism". Aris Katsaris 01:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for labelling the United States (Black Panthers, COINTELPRO, McCarthy, and the ringleader in the other three cases) a "capitalistic dictatorship". Shorne 01:41, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am in no particular interest to play your beloved games of wordage. USA under McCarthy was horrible, but even then it didn't reach the levels of political suppression that even the *nicest and mildest* communist regime ever had. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that this is nothing but POV. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You just go right ahead, but don't expect me to be over there reverting you. My quarrel is not with communism, but with killing people and then trying to lie out of it. Fred Bauder 00:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Who is guilty of that, pray? Shorne 00:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an answer, Fred Bauder. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Police forces in free nations exist to *prevent* violence, not to cause it." "Liberal democracy doesn't espouse violent suppression of dissidents". Oh really? Maybe you'd like to watch this video [1] (Portland A22) and explain to me what's going on there, for I must have completely misunderstood. - pir 01:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Download a 75MB video? Not likely, no broadband connection is mine. Aris Katsaris 02:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't watch it. You might get pepper spray in your eyes. Shorne 03:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brief description of the video: large demo against Bush by all kinds of people, mostly liberals, religious pacifists, ecologists and anarchists. Lots of elderly people, families with kids, students. No violence from portesters at all, no material that could be used for violence to be seen either (not with the demonstrators at least, the coppers are fully armed). At some point the police (in full riot gear) start charging into the demo, pepper spraying, beating people with batons, shooting tear gas and rubber bullets, arresting people. If you don't want to watch the video have a look at these pics [2] of a fat copper having fun mashing up a defenceless woman. They even managed to pepper spray infants together with their parents [3]. Oh, I know, you'll think it's all the work of "a few rotten apples". But look at how the city authorities reacted [4]. In practice, the police are pretty much above the law, and that is ultimately the reason why the "rotten apples" do what they do. Now ask yourself: why are the police not democratically accountable? - pir 13:38, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of suppression, may I point out that the United States and the United Kingdom, in evident concert with Switzerland, Italy, France, and perhaps other nations, last week seized all the servers of Indymedia, which made that video available? Indymedia still has not been charged with any wrongdoing. Lovely illustration of capitalist-style "freedom of speech". Shorne 02:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I lived under a mild communist regime, now I live in a democratic and capitalist state and I have to say that whatever objections may be raised against "bourgeois democracy", there is a HUGE difference in freedom of speech between the two. I think a good test for the presence of democracy is answering this question: can you publicly say that your country is not democratic and you won't be censored, arrested and/or fired at work?

I think there is some chance of all of them, but while the second is remote, and the first is somewhat remote, the third is less remote. Statements against the government at work, depending on their character, may possibly get you fired, depending on who your employer is, what your boss is like, what have you, and particularly considering that, in the U.S. at least, "at-will" employment is the general scenario. However, as this would the action of a probably private employer rather than government action, it may well be, at most, peripheral to the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But then you can sue the private employer, can't you? Boraczek 13:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possibly, but I think it would be unlikely in most cases that such a suit would be successful; it would certainly be difficult at best under an "at-will" employment regime, and, outside of tenured professors (and there are examples in the United States of actions taken and attempted against them for such things), it would be difficult to sustain the suit in almost any situation as political dissidents are hardly a protected class, and in any case it could be argued by the employer that the termination was "for cause." --Daniel C. Boyer 14:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The answer valid for "bourgeois democratic" states is "yes, you can", the answer valid for communist states is "no, you can't". This really makes a difference. And this also shows that there is a difference between the ranges of using force by communist states and of using force by democratic states. Boraczek 13:31, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'd have to agree that police are supposed to be there to keep people safe, but there are real a-holes in any profession. Perhaps the difference is in what the police are officiall and unofficially ordered to do by their superiors. And I think that that has a lot to with which administration is in power. In any case, let's keep in mind that any form of government can fall prey to corruption. Additionally, I would like to add that subtlety is the key when trying to convince someone. You can't just cram an idea down someone's throat -- they'll just vomit it back up all over you. It's better to present a buffet of ideas and opinions and let people choose what seems the most truthful. And if you make your case clearly, concisely, and honestly, they'll probably side with you. -- Tim McCormack 02:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC) Disclaimer: I don't actually have much of an opinion at all about communism in general.

Thanks for taking a balanced view. Indeed, your words are precisely what I said in my change: communism, like other systems of government today, does use force. I'm going to restore the change now, since there seems to be little genuine dispute about it. Shorne 02:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, no, that conclusion isn't possible from what was stated above. What Tim said is that any government can fall prey to corruption - but that's a failing of the human element, not an inherent part of the system. The argument regarding communism is that communist governments used force as their modus operandi in dealing with dissidents. While it is true that some "capitalist" governments have engaged in repression, this is not a feature of the system. Capitalism as an economic philosophy (I recommend consulting the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo for a primer) does not call for nor rely upon force to achieve its ends. Quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, capitalism does not define a system of government. While it is true that capitalism is most often found with liberal democracies, this is more reflective of free systems finding each other than a categorical imperative. Opposed to this, we have the writings of Lenin, who believed absolutely in force, and the examples of communist regimes around the world. I am not familiar with any communist regime that has permitted real, open, criticism and dissent while remaining communist. I am familiar, however, with the methods by which the Soviet Union, North Korea, the People's Republic of China, and East Germany, to name a few, kept themselves in power without the open consent of the citizenry. While it can be argued that the United States has taken a disturbing turn towards authoritarianism, this reflects the personality of President Bush and his administration, and is notably at odds with the policies of his predecessor, which would seem to indicate that the use of force against ones own citizeny (which is not the same as the use of force abroad) is not part and parcel with democratic capitalism. Mackensen 04:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to clarify my comments. I am not supporting any of the viewpoints presented here; I am merely presenting an alternative view of the origins of violence in a system. What I am saying is that no known system of government is inherently violent. Whether certain ones are more prone to violence is a completely different matter, and one that is (quite possibly) impossible to argue logically or on a factual basis. The only thing that can be stated with a firm backing is that certain governments have had certain reputations. Beyond this there is always a question of who ordered what and how the information has been distorted. No more, no less. Besides, whether police brutality in Portland is a direct consequence of the capitalist system has nearly no relevance to an article on the principles and history of communism. I encourage all parties to focus on the goal of this article: to present a "fair and balanced" view of a concept from both ideological and historical standpoints. If people are having a difficult time keeping the two separate (which, admittedly, is easier said than done), then perhaps a splitting of the article is called for, into said divisions. My hands are tired, so I'm going to stop writing now. -- Tim McCormack 18:25, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who won't face reality. Capitalism is just as dependent upon force as any other social system. Capitalism requires police, armies, security guards, and other institutions that protect the interest of the bourgeoisie. Socialism requires police and the like that protect the interest of the proletariat. The only difference is that socialism is honest about it: it speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Capitalism never admits to being the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

So-called "Socialism" has never been honest about being the dictatorship of the Communist Party elite. Do you think North Korea is likewise a "dictatorship of the proletariat" as opposed to a dictatorship of the "Dear Leader"? But you are right in one thing -- so-called "socialism" *admits* to being a dictatorship atleast, while capitalism doesn't. That's why it's not a violation of NPOV to name it those countries dictatorships that are dependent on force -- because both their supporters and their opponents do believe them to be such: unlike what we believe about liberal democracies. Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If it's not a dictatorship of the proletariat, it's not socialism, now, is it? It really takes a chisel to get through some skulls! Shorne 19:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, how *nice* a circular definition. Before now "socialism" was supposedly honest about being a "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- therefore "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a *descriptor* of what "socialism" was, since otherwise your claims of "honesty" wouldn't be meaningful. Now however "dictatorship of the proletatiat" is not a self-description of the "socialist regimes", but rather a definition of them instead. Very well, in that case there never existed a single "dictatorship of the proletariat" in Soviet Union or Eastern Europe, and you can't therefore claim it was "honest" about anything. Aris Katsaris 19:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I haven't changed anything. You're the one who is distorting matters.

The Soviet Union had a dictatorship of the proletariat many long years ago. It got transformed into a vile and oppressive Brezhnevite bureaucracy that you are trying to sell as the epitome of socialism. Setting up your red straw man so that you can knock him down. I'm not going to argue with you; you're much too ill informed. Shorne 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You seem to confuse the theory with the reality. In theory, communist governments should protect the interest of the proletariat. In practice, however, they protected the interest of the political bureaucracy, as Milovan Djilas called it, that is, communist party officials. And, as sociological analyses show, workers are the social category which is most deprived of power in communist states. So, implemented communism reveals a high level of hypocrisy. Boraczek 13:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

End of argument from me until you've done some reading and some thinking. I don't have time for this nonsense. Shorne 05:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that's the rudest reply I've ever gotten on these pages. I would ask that you treat those of us who don't agree with you with some measure of respect. Your comment about capitalism needing police, armies, and security could just as easily be addressing sovereign states in general, and as such I won't dispute it. I will, however, dispute most strongly your attempt to equate such structures in "capitalist" states with those in communist states. Now, it is true that, like in any system, there are abuses/controversial actions, some of them horrible. To cite obvious examples: the WTO riots in Seattle, the American invasion of Iraq. However, these were also heavily discussed in the news media at the time, and the government has been highly criticized for its action from many quarters. It is entirely possible that the current administration will be turned out because of citizen dissatisfaction. For a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, there's a remarkable amount of dissent, and not all of it from the middle class. Now, you who've told me to read and think, tell me what would happen if people publicly criticized a communist government in the same position. Mackensen 06:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dispute to the idea that violence and repression are not an in-built feature of capitalism. Free-market capitalism causes what is usually called the widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, which in turn causes social conflict. The way to deal with these social conflicts is (at least when other methods fail) by force, usually the police force. I'm not just talking about excesses here, I'm also talking about things like Clinton's "three strikes and you're out". The main role of the police force in capitalist societies is to maintain property relations. Most Western capitalist states try to alleviate social conflict by re-distribution of wealth and other state intervention into the market, but with the advent of neo-liberalism that's pretty much over. You can see it more clearly for example in Latin American capitalist countries, where police repression is a lot harsher (and I'm talking about the current "democratic" states, not the Pinochet-style dictatorships) than in Western countries (although this is not reported much - just look up the events around the Brukman factory in Argentina for example). I'm just talking about internal repression here, the violence used by capitalist states to maintain access to strategicially important resources like Middle Eastern oil is another aspect. Oh - and just for your information, the US imprisons a higher percentage of the population at this point than the USSR under Stalin. - pir 11:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, Stalin simply killed them instead. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, the "land of the free" is the world's biggest prison state, with the possible exception of Rwanda during the recent war there, and has been for several decades. US imprisonment of Blacks greatly exceeds that of South Africa under apartheid. Shorne 12:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We have a different definition of what constitutes a "prison state". For me a prison state is a state which you are not allowed to leave. Which makes the communist bloc, the largest group of prison states that there ever existed. Aris Katsaris 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still, prisons of the US seem to be luxurious hotels when compared with prisons and gulags of the USSR. Let's take the simpliest statistics. Few people die in the prisons of the US, while the estimate of the number of people who died in inhuman conditions in Soviet gulags is 12 million. Your argument is just based on obliterating the difference of degree. A pinch on a cheek can be regarded as an act of violence and burrning a man alive is an act of violence. We say "in the USSR so many people were burnt alive" and you answer "but in the US an even higher number of people were pinched on a cheek, so the US is as violent a state as the USSR". Boraczek 14:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In addition, please don't forget that the establishment of capitalist societies is usually just as violent as the establishment of (allegedly) communist/socialist societies. The bourgeois French Revolution was a pretty bloody business (guillotine, the Terror etc.) ; the colonisation of North American involved slaughtering a lot of native Americans, slavery was an important factor in developing the US economy, to give just two examples. - pir 12:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Astute comments by Pir and Shone. I couldn't have said it better myself. 172 12:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nice strawman you've got there. The colonization of North America reminds me more of a mercantilist economic system working in tandem with a monarchy. Consider that the American Revolution, which was arguably a revolution by liberal capitalists against a monarchy, only turned violent when the monarchy attempted to crush dissent. As for the French Revolution, I'm not sure how you're pinning that one on capitalists. Before you go flinging around random examples of brutality in history, I think you owe it to all of us engaged in the debate to explain how they are relevant. Mackensen 14:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only point I'm trying to make here (and I think it's quite a trivial point) is the following: if you want to install a radically new economic/social/political system and abolish the existing one, you usually need to use large-scale violence because there will be resistance. And once such a system is installed, it needs to crush internal dissent when it becomes strong enough to actually be a threat. I am not arguing in favour of (or against) communism, or capitalism, or the American Revolution here. I'm just saying that the use of violence is an "inbuilt feature". Regarding "the American Revolution, which was arguably a revolution by liberal capitalists against a monarchy, only turned violent when the monarchy attempted to crush dissent", I feel that fully supports my point.

No, I would disagree. The violence did indeed begin because one system conflicted with another. However, the violence also ended with the Treaty of Paris in 1783. The United States did not need to rely upon wholesale terrorizing of its citizens to maintain its position. Compare this to communist countries, which have always maintained a large and powerful secret police to control their citizens. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For communism it's much easier to show that violence is an inbuilt feature, because you had a have learned men with beards sit down and work out how to achieve this, and write it down. With capitalism, people used violence without writing down all their justifications and thought beforehand. But that doesn't prove it's not an inbuilt feature.

You have yet to prove that capitalism relies on violence towards its citizens to maintain itself. Let's be clear about this. Enforcement of property rights is one thing, mass-jailing or execution of citizens something else altogether. Mackensen 18:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes let's be clear about it: Stalinist repression was far more brutal and violent. Still, I think it would be inacurrate to say that only few people supported communism in the USSR - a very large proportion of the population in Russia today would be quite happy to go back to the old days. Capitalism is (1) far more firmly installed, therefore it doesn't need such crude tactics to assert itself ; (2) it is a system which is much more resilient and difficult to subvert ; it doesn't require centralised control of all individual citizens, all capitalism needs is centralised control of certain conditions which then in turn control how individuals act. Capitalism selects for those that maintain it and marginalises those who don't follow its logic and those for which it has no use - a very stable system that usually prevents widespread dissent.

Still as soon as you start to undermine the framework on which capitalism relies, bad things happen to you. People who do this in any serious way have a habit of ending up in jail, or being executed, or otherwise a bullet in their head - maybe it's just bad karma. For example Jeff Luers was branded an ecoterrorist and jailed for 22 years for burning down a couple of SUVs - let's compare that to Kenneth Lay who caused far bigger material damage. See also Sacco and Vanzetti, Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, some of whom were without doubt miscarriages of justice, and Malcolm X where the FBI clearly had a big influence on the conditions that led to his death. All of these are about maintainig existing property relations of capitalist society in a more determined way. (and yes - the Gulag was worse)

What happens when capitalism gets into real trouble and there is large-scale dissent? Well, you could for example read the following two sections of the article about Nationsocialism to find an answer. - pir 20:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my argument that free-market capitalism causes ever increasing social inequality, which in turn causes social conflict. The tool to deal with these social conflicts is by force, usually the police force, whose role is to maintain property relations. - pir 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This discussion seems very polarized. Perhaps progress could be made if both sides concede some of the points that the other is making. On the one side, it seems clear to me that there have historically been differences of degree in the amount of state-internal violence used within states that claimed to be committed to communism and states that are committed to capitalism. Whether these differences are to be explained in terms of differences between these two systems of thought or are better explained by other causes is a different question -- perhaps pir and Shorne can agree that there were such differences of degree? On the other side, it also seems clear to me that capitalism is based on upholding extensive property rights by violence and the threat thereof. While it may be true that every state needs a police, the police might have a lot less to do if it didn't have to uphold property rights as defined in capitalist states. One may find such extensive property rights a good or a bad idea, and one may find them such a good idea that one agrees they should be upheld using violence, but the same is of course also true about communism -- one may find it such a good idea that one agrees that it should be brought about or defended using violence. Perhaps the others can agree that this is indeed violence inherent in the system? Fpahl 15:54, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree. I am certainly no Stalinist apologist. I do think there are differences in the amount of internal repression. However, I think the main reason for that are the historical circumstances rather any inherent noble features of capitalism. - pir 17:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all we've got to work with are historical circumstances. And, historically, I doubt very much that you could find a communist government that stayed in power with the open and willful consent of those governed. Mackensen 18:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point, Fpahl, is that this stuff is POV. I've never denied that countries pursuing communism have to make use of violence for certain purposes. I do object to the single-minded inclusion of this stuff in an article on communism as if it were 1) the very essence of communism; 2) not also characteristic of capitalism. Capitalism had by far the most blood on its hands in the twentieth century, and I can prove it. Shorne 19:00, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We can insert characteristics of communism which are admitted by all to occur. We can't insert characteristics of capitalism that ONLY communists believe are true without adding the qualifier that it's communists that believe capitalist societies to also work so-and-so. We can't say "as with all others in today's world" as if it was fact, rather than communist belief. We can say however "which the communists believe is the case with all other societies in today's world also". See the difference between NPOV and non-NPOV? YOU, SHORNE, ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE THE ARTICLE'S VOICE BE IDENTICAL TO *YOUR* VOICE. Aris Katsaris 19:47, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then by all means do prove it. Of course, you're going to have to prove that it was inherent to the functioning of capitalism that it happened. Also, I'd like to remind you that we're speaking of internal repression. Imperialism, which can and does occur without capitalism, does not qualify as internal repression. Mackensen 19:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Civil liberties

Shorne, you write:

"I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who won't face reality. Capitalism is just as dependent upon force as any other social system. Capitalism requires police, armies, security guards, and other institutions that protect the interest of the bourgeoisie. Socialism requires police and the like that protect the interest of the proletariat. The only difference is that socialism is honest about it: it speaks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Capitalism never admits to being the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie."

The possession of an unlicensed mimeograph machine was a crime, as was possession of a book not published by the state, a samizdat. People who tried to escape the country were shot. Organizing a political party was a crime. Simply expressing your opinion in public was dangerous. We are talking about a whole different level of control, in fact, about a totalitarian state. Why don't free societies need this tight level of control. The simple answer is that the majority of the people support the government; the obverse: why couldn't a socialist country hold free elections? Because they were likely to lose. When the threat of force was removed the regimes fell. Fred Bauder 19:27, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

But you fail to recognize the role that force plays or may play in marshaling this support. Would the regime of the U.S. survive if the "threat of force" (the army, navy, police forces &c.) was removed? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And the Yankee puppet régimes all around the world would fall like a rock if the "threat of force" were removed. Shorne 00:07, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yankee puppet régimes? I'd think you'd find that in most "capitalist" regimes (which must include the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan) are not "Yankee" puppets. More to the point, citizens in those countries agree that the rule of law is a good thing, and they often strive to uphold it. "Threat of force" strikes me as an unduly harsh turn of phrase to describe a liberal democratic capitalist regime (I'd like to note that I regard the use of the word "capitalist" as somewhat misleading in this debate). Mackensen 02:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What do you imagine the police, the army &c. are if not a "threat of force"? You may be unused to seeing it characterised this way, but I don't imagine there can be any dispute about it. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It strikes me as an odd way to characterize it. The vast majority of people in so-called "capitalist" countries are quite happy that property rights are upheld. Moreover, those people are allowed to express their dissent. Consider all the newspaper columnists who regularly attack the government. In a communist country they'd have been jailed. Call it "threat of force" if you like, but there's a difference of degree of several orders of magnitude. Mackensen 16:17, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism

I haven't participated in the critique of capitalism above. Simply put, this article is not about capitalism and the methods of control "democratic" states use. I guess the question to pose is: How should the nature of capitalist societies affect the content of this article? I sense there is some sentiment that some of the gory details (as well as broad generalizatons) ought to be omitted as capitalism is just as bad or even worse or have I unjustly stated the case? Fred Bauder 14:07, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be the position of Shorne, pir, and 172, yes. However, I would strongly contest that comparison and I don't think I would be alone in doing so. My position would be that violence/repression is an inherent part of communism and that the evidence from the 20th century combined with an analysis of the writings on Lenin and others justify this position. As for capitalism, it's relevant only as a tu quoque defense. There is no proof that I've seen on these pages that capitalism - which is only an economic system, not also a social system - needs the repression of its citizens in order to function. While there are examples of regimes that possess capitalist economic systems that have engaged in repression, I have yet to see examples that would convince me that this was because of the nature of capitalism, and not of the regime. Mackensen 14:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV generalities alleging that violence is inherent to communism do not belong here. You might as well go to Negro and write "Faeces are an inherent part of Black people, all of whom produce copious amounts in their lifetimes", without saying the same thing about any other population. Shorne 19:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Except that violence against its own population is not an inherent part of capitalism and you've yet to provide evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we have the examples of Stalin's purges, the activities of the Khmer Rouge in the late 70s, and the Cultural Revolution in China. Moreover, we have the examples of the systematic use of secret police and intimidation in communist states (the Stasi in East Germany, the Cheka/KGB in the Soviet Union, to name but a few). Now, to make the point relevant, this intimidation was directed against people who wouldn't get with the program. The program was communism and was overseen by a communist state. As a side note, I find your counter-example in extremely poor taste and unnecessary. Mackensen 19:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But, and though comparisons of degree could be drawn, surely capitalism uses intimidation directed against people who won't get with the program. Is someone who opposes the capitalist system simply allowed to do so to any degree or in any way he wishes? I'm sure that you will start talking about "crime," and this is certainly a colourable and perhaps even a valid point, but it is also arguable that there is a certain point at which capitalism does use intimidation, there have been capitalist regimes that have used secret police (the present-day U.S. with its FBI and Secret Service acting against political dissidents, some of whom are speaking and/or acting against capitalism specifically). To claim otherwise is POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 23:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When someone in the US kills or imprisons someone for political activity against the system, it's called punishing traitors. When the Soviet Union tried Nazi collaborators, it was called Stalinist totalitarianism. Shorne 23:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So the kulaks were Nazis then? And the entire upper echelon of the military? And Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Mackensen 00:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Damn right. Many kulaks were indeed Nazis. There can be no denying it. Shorne 00:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Okay, prove it. Cite some sources. Sources that can be verified. Mackensen 01:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Equally POV, I think, is to ignore questions of degree. When one asserts that degree of difference does not matter, one is asserting a moral equivalency. Abuses by the FBI and Secret Service do not compare to the systematic repression that occurred and still does occur in communist regimes worldwide. Mackensen 23:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Which "regimes" today are "communist"? You obviously have not even read this article. Shorne 23:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would be able to come up with a definition that would satisfy you. I would regard North Korea and Cuba as being communist, China less so, as she appears to be lurching towards a market economy. Now that we've harped on the minor part of my statement, how about addressing the moral equivalency? Mackensen 00:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that even to address the "moral equivalency" is to say that this article should be POV. If we are serious about NPOV we shouldn't be talking about "moral equivalency," the only people who talk about it being those who believe that as capitalism is morally superior to communism, one has to regard the abuses of capitalism as not being as meaningful as similar abuses of communism. This view of moral equivalency can be characterised insofar as it's relevant to the article, but I think we're getting on thin ice here, as the point of this article shouldn't be to endorse capitalism over communism or vice versa. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's just one step in a blatant campaign to insist on a POV. My point from the beginning, repeated here for those who have brains, is that all this shit is inappropriate in this article. Go talk about violence somewhere else. I'd be shot at dawn if I dared to add to the article "Capitalism" a section called "Crimes of Capitalism" (proving, for example, that 100 million children starve to death every seven years because of capitalist economic priorities) or to say that capitalism uses violent means to protect itself, but people can come here and spread lies about "100 million" people "killed" by communism, even after said lies have been completely refuted many, many times. That's POV, pure and simple. Shorne 00:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm concerned that in a quest for NPOV we're actually being POV. I'm not talking about endorsing capitalism, I'm talking about describing communism as it operated (and in isolated cases, continues to operate). When you talk about "similar" abuses of communism, I have to wonder what any capitalist country has ever done to its populace that could stand at the level of the Great Purge, or the Cultural Revolution.

Wasn't National Socialism in Germany essentially capitalist? --Daniel C. Boyer 12:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. First of all, capitalism is an economic system, not a social system. Capitalism is usually wedded to a liberal democracy these days, but it doesn't have to be. Now, Nazi Germany is considered Fascist, and Fascism's tendency to blur the line between corporate and state is anathema to the concept of free markets. Nazi Germany is usually classed, therefore, as a Fascist dictatorship, which is fairly far from liberal democratic capitalism. Mackensen 16:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What Shorne wants to say is that the organized repression of a state's citizens is the modus operandi the world over, and I don't find that point particularly convincing or provable. Mackensen 00:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Capitalism

I haven't participated in the critique of capitalism above. Simply put, this article is not about capitalism and the methods of control "democratic" states use. I guess the question to pose is: How should the nature of capitalist societies affect the content of this article? I sense there is some sentiment that some of the gory details (as well as broad generalizatons) ought to be omitted as capitalism is just as bad or even worse or have I unjustly stated the case? Fred Bauder 14:07, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be the position of Shorne, pir, and 172, yes. However, I would strongly contest that comparison and I don't think I would be alone in doing so. My position would be that violence/repression is an inherent part of communism and that the evidence from the 20th century combined with an analysis of the writings on Lenin and others justify this position. As for capitalism, it's relevant only as a tu quoque defense. There is no proof that I've seen on these pages that capitalism - which is only an economic system, not also a social system - needs the repression of its citizens in order to function. While there are examples of regimes that possess capitalist economic systems that have engaged in repression, I have yet to see examples that would convince me that this was because of the nature of capitalism, and not of the regime. Mackensen 14:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV generalities alleging that violence is inherent to communism do not belong here. You might as well go to Negro and write "Faeces are an inherent part of Black people, all of whom produce copious amounts in their lifetimes", without saying the same thing about any other population. Shorne 19:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Except that violence against its own population is not an inherent part of capitalism and you've yet to provide evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, we have the examples of Stalin's purges, the activities of the Khmer Rouge in the late 70s, and the Cultural Revolution in China. Moreover, we have the examples of the systematic use of secret police and intimidation in communist states (the Stasi in East Germany, the Cheka/KGB in the Soviet Union, to name but a few). Now, to make the point relevant, this intimidation was directed against people who wouldn't get with the program. The program was communism and was overseen by a communist state. As a side note, I find your counter-example in extremely poor taste and unnecessary. Mackensen 19:30, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whether "violence is inherent to communism" is the subject of many weighty tomes of scholarship; one could write a whole long article just to give a bare summary of what all the philosophers, ethicists, etc, have written on the subject. The real-life examples are circumstantial evidence, but not much more. It would work to attribute; "In capitalist [or Western] nations, there is a widespread belief that violence is inherent to communism, and this belief has a variety of effects on these nations' relationships with communist nations. For instance, this belief played a role in securing public approval for large military expenditures during the Cold War". And then you link to the article where you discuss the philosophical question in such depth that everybody runs away screaming. :-) Stan 06:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Large file warning

Perhaps it is time to archive this file (again)? You'll probably want to delete this section ("Large file warning") once people agree on archival. Tim McCormack 02:14, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

Added Template

I've been trying to get this template going. If anyone disagrees with it, remove it; I stopped caring a while ago. --Oceanhahn 03:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I hope I can do something to encourage you, but I must admit that I understand completely. Thanks for the nice template. We won't let anyone ruin it. Shorne 03:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, JFO! It looks great. The Communist Ideology page is still in progress, isn't it? --McCorrection 10:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a section on the moral superiority of capitalism?

Apologies if this has already been covered, I haven't read the archives, but I always thought the moral superiority of capitalism could be assessed by the value of tolerance. In a capitalist society, people are free to live communally if they choose, most examples are probably religious communities, whereas in existing communist societies, living as a capitalist is a crime. This moral approach has some implications for policy in capitalist societies, in particular, I've always objected to property taxes, since the need to acquire legal tender to pay them, might require those living communally to participate in the markets and contribute to the rest of society against their will. If they don't want to, IMHO, they shouldn't have to, thus my opposition to property taxes. OTOH, perhaps some communal communities would not object to participating in markets and "competing" communally as a commune, much like extended families in some cultures do.

Is there an analogue in communist societies, for how those choosing to live capitalistically could be tolerated and not suppressed?--Silverback 12:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But, apart from whatever possible objections that could be raised to this, it is POV as it is predicated on "tolerance" being a positive value, and others might not see it as a question of "tolerance" or might deny that "tolerance" is a positive value. This POV can be expressed in some article on Wikipedia (probably it is not best put in this one), but it needs to be said that this is a POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps more neutral wording, leaving out "superiority", and just factually examples such as this where capitalism is more tolerant and non-coercive towards communism and letting the reader decide whether tolerance is positive or not?--Silverback 16:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Silverback, read up on our NPOV policy. We aren't writing argumentative essays here, ok?AndyL 16:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I always thought the moral superiority of capitalism could be assessed by the value of tolerance

Capitalism's tolerance for poverty, unemployment, illness etc does not make it morally superior, quite the opposite. AndyL 18:43, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)