Sheldon,
The argument that "no communist regime has ever claimed to actually *be* communist" is already discussed in the Wikipedia article, and is IMHO opinion an example of exactly the sort of "disinformation" your other wiki is supposedly dedicated to exposing.
Instead of trying to run verbal rings around LittleDan, why not take a moment to consider what he *meant*?
Which was, apparently:
* putting communist ideas into effect by creating what pro-Marxists might call "building socialism" in a country.
The fact that these "socialist" experiments collapsed in the former Soviet bloc would seem to support the POV that communism never works in practice.
Anyway, the question is still whether:
* the Wikipedia ought to assert the fact that communism doesn't work, or * the Wikipedia ought to REPORT that various observers have concluded that communism doesn't work
My understanding of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that we should not assert communism's unworkableness as fact but rather report that observers say it doesn't work.
Uncle Ed
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
- the Wikipedia ought to assert the fact that communism doesn't work, or
- the Wikipedia ought to REPORT that various observers have concluded that communism doesn't work
My understanding of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that we should not assert communism's unworkableness as fact but rather report that observers say it doesn't work.
That's right. As well as reporting on the responses of those who think otherwise.
--Jimbo
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 12:29, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Sheldon,
The argument that "no communist regime has ever claimed to actually *be* communist" is already discussed in the Wikipedia article, and is IMHO opinion an example of exactly the sort of "disinformation" your other wiki is supposedly dedicated to exposing.
Instead of trying to run verbal rings around LittleDan, why not take a moment to consider what he *meant*?
He did. Please don't attack Sheldon.
Sheldon's point is that "communism" is an amorphous concept. Before one can make assertions about the truth of the statement "communism doesn't work", one needs to have a working definition of "communism".
NPOV is more than reporting on what other people say. That's part of it, but not the only part.
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Sheldon,
The argument that "no communist regime has ever claimed to actually *be* communist" is already discussed in the Wikipedia article, and is IMHO opinion an example of exactly the sort of "disinformation" your other wiki is supposedly dedicated to exposing.
Instead of trying to run verbal rings around LittleDan, why not take a moment to consider what he *meant*?
I don't think that Sheldon is doing that. He's simply pointing out that it's not a black and white issue, and that a lot depends on who is defining the word. It's quite natural for a person with pro-communist leanings to define that word differently from an anti-communist, and for both to be wrong. LittleDan's question was straightforward, but truth comes in many shades of grey.
Which was, apparently:
- putting communist ideas into effect by creating what
pro-Marxists might call "building socialism" in a country.
The fact that these "socialist" experiments collapsed in the former Soviet bloc would seem to support the POV that communism never works in practice.
Absolutely false. It only proves that it can't pursue its ideals at the same time as it maintains an arms race. The capitalist systems does arms races much better.
Anyway, the question is still whether:
- the Wikipedia ought to assert the fact that communism
doesn't work, or
- the Wikipedia ought to REPORT that various observers
have concluded that communism doesn't work
My understanding of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that we should not assert communism's unworkableness as fact but rather report that observers say it doesn't work.
It's not really enough to use the bare phrase "observers say...". In the absence of knowing just who the observers are, you've just passed the buck to somebody that can't be identified, and whose facts can't be checked.
Eclecticology
Ed Poor wrote:
The argument that "no communist regime has ever claimed to actually *be* communist" is already discussed in the Wikipedia article, and is IMHO opinion an example of exactly the sort of "disinformation" your other wiki is supposedly dedicated to exposing.
Which Wikipedia article -- [[Communism]]? Not very coherent on this point -- or many others -- right now (although I'm not sure how well I could improve it). [[Socialism]] explains it better and agrees with Sheldon; according to Marxist theory, communism has never existed. (That leaves open the possibility of a Communist regime disavowing Marxist theory in this respect.)
Instead of trying to run verbal rings around LittleDan, why not take a moment to consider what he *meant*? Which was, apparently:
- putting communist ideas into effect by creating what
pro-Marxists might call "building socialism" in a country.
I'm not sure that it's fair to Sheldon to expect him to know that this is what LittleDan meant. Part of Sheldon's point is that the meaning is unclear.
Unless LittleDan's post is coming from a specific article somewhere that Sheldon knows about. Is this what's going on? Have we brought a dispute from an article talk page to the mailing list?
The fact that these "socialist" experiments collapsed in the former Soviet bloc would seem to support the POV that communism never works in practice.
But not very well. This is the problem with supporting a universal negative. That China has *not* collapsed, and is doing relatively well, is far more opposition to this universal negative than the collapse of any number of Soviet republics.
My understanding of Jimbo's NPOV policy is that we should not assert communism's unworkableness as fact but rather report that observers say it doesn't work.
This is the important point, and you are right.
-- Toby