[WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV

Thu Mar 20 16:10:28 UTC 2003

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

>  > Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something
>  > similar)

And Jimmy Wales responded:

>It's better to soften the claim to an extent that even a pro-Communist
>could agree with it.  It's very vague to say "never works", for
>example.  It would be better to simply point out that communist
>societies have had some notable failures such as X, Y, and Z.

The vagueness is what makes Daniel's statement indefensible. One 
might as easily say that "Christianity never works in practice" or 
"capitalism never works in practice." The statement is so broadly 
worded that it is open to legitimate dispute on several definitional 
grounds alone, e.g., "How do you define 'communism'?" or "What does 
it mean to say that something 'works in practice'?" For example:

(1) Marxists make a clear definitional distinction between 
"socialism" and "communism," and no communist regime has ever claimed 
to actually *be* communist. The Soviet Union, for example, called 
itself the "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics." In Marxist theory, 
socialism is viewed as a transitional social system that will 
eventually give way to communism (once the state "withers away"). 
Obviously this theory is open to challenge, but the regimes that 
collapsed in the former Soviet bloc were examples of what a member of 
the Communist Party USA would call "actually existing socialism," not 
"communism." From the point of view of Marxist theory, therefore, 
communism has never "failed" because it has never yet *existed*.

(2) On the other hand, various non-Marxist definitions of communism 
also exist. If we adopt some of those definitions, it is possible to 
argue that communism has sometimes worked quite well. During the 19th 
century, for example, members of the Mormon Church practiced a form 
of religious communism known as the "United Order." Participants held 
all property in common and acted in concert under the leadership of 
religious authorities. Under this system, they successfully colonized 
a large portion of the American west and accomplished things that no 
one else was able to accomplish. (Mormons, for example, were the 
first successful irrigators in the western United States.) Likewise, 
there is the example of the Israeli kibbutz, as well as any number of 
communes operating today in the United States and elsewhere that 
practice some form of "communism." Just last month, a nonprofit 
organization for which I volunteer received a check for $30,000 from 
a guy who lives on a commune. If he's got that kind of money to send 
our way, you'd have to conclude that his preferred brand of communism 
works pretty well for him!

(3) Even under capitalism, there are many examples and forms of 
successful community-based ownership. For example, some intellectual 
works are in the public domain. (Depending on how you define 
communism, Wikipedia itself could be characterized as an example of 
"communism that works"!) Most industrialized nations outside the 
United States have some form of socialized medicine, and the end 
result seems to "work" pretty well. (Europeans have marginally better 
longevity than U.S. citizens, while paying a third of what we spend 
per capita on health care.)

(4) Finally, Daniel's original statement is terminally vague about 
what it means to "work in practice." The Bolshevik revolution "worked 
in practice" as a way of ending Russian participation in a 
debilitating war. The Chinese Communist revolution "worked in 
practice" at ending opium addiction (after Mao executed a million 
addicts). It has also "worked in practice" for more than half a 
century at achieving social stability and economic growth. Here, for 
example, is how Wikipedia currently describes the achievements of the 
regime:

>The large number of deaths during the period of consolidation of 
>power after victory in the Chinese civil war paled in comparison to 
>the number of deaths caused by famine, anarchy, war, and foreign 
>invasion in the years before the Communists took power.
>
>Supporters of Mao point out that before 1949, for instance, the 
>illiteracy rate in Mainland China was 80 percent, and life 
>expectancy was a meager 35 years. At his death, illiteracy had 
>declined to less than seven per cent, and average life expectancy 
>had increased to more than 70 years. In addition, China's population 
>which had remained constant at 400 million from the [[Opium War]] to 
>the end of the [[Chinese Civil War|Civil War]], mushroomed to 700 
>million as of Mao's death.
[SNIP]
>China, unlike virtually any other [[Third World]] nation, no longer 
>has to fear the prospects of [[over-population]], [[malnutrition]], 
>and famine in spite of the doubling of life expectancy during the 
>Mao years. With population growth stabilized, China is sustaining 
>one of the world's highest rates of per capita economic growth in 
>the world.

DISCLAIMER: None of the above discussion should be interpreted to 
mean that I endorse the economic policies, political philosophy or 
repressive practices of the Chinese government. The point is not that 
sweeping statements like the one that Daniel gave *are* POV because 
they overgeneralize, ignoring facts and arguments that contradict the 
generalization.
-- 
--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Editor, PR Watch (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
--------------------------------