[WikiEN-l] Sheldon, LittleDan and communism

[Ray Saintonge]

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