Wiki Doesn't Want To Give Mass Murder A Bad Name By Associating It With Communists, I Guess?
- Thread starter Chesterton
- Start date
Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source for information.
Larry Sanger Cofounder of Wikipedia. Excerpt.
Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead. The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.” The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given. More
Larry Sanger Cofounder of Wikipedia. Excerpt.
Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead. The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.” The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given. More
Upvote
0
- Apr 27, 2017
- 7,612
- 8,475
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Others
Wikipedia has never been a reliable source for information even at its best. It can be a good start for ideas and seeking out more reliable sources though. I've used wiki in informal arguments on discussion boards like this one (with everyone hopefully knowing to take with a grain of salt), but I would not use it in a works cited list for a formal academic paper, and that was even before the current influx of woke politics.
Upvote
0
- May 10, 2011
- 10,529
- 3,588
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
Mass murder is mass murder. Communism is Communism. They have been mass murders in Communism but Communism is not synonymous with mass murder. You can ascociate COmmunism with mass murder but you can't say mass murder is Communist because it's a Fascist, racist, and ethnic cleansing activity also.
Upvote
0
grasping the after wind
That's grasping after the wind
- Jan 18, 2010
- 19,458
- 6,354
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Communism has not, does not and will not ever exist. Communist parties that run totalitarian socialist governments are indeed synonymous with mass murder as none has ever been seen to exist without it.
Communists leads all other ideological groups in mass murder by a large margin. That fascists are next in line which ought to tell us something about totalitarians and true socialists. That being that they cannot maintain their power without killing off large portions of their population.
Upvote
0
- May 10, 2011
- 10,529
- 3,588
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
That was about one of the most demented and nuts scenes I have ever seen (in the movie). The pictures were horrible
Upvote
0
- May 10, 2011
- 10,529
- 3,588
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Green
Sounds like it's more synonymous with Totalitarianism.
Upvote
0
Which unfortunately communism seems to evolve into. Someone needs to be in control of dispensing the goods equally. It puts the power and control of all assets into the hands of people some of which begin to see themselves as privileged. Humans, even those who begin with altruistic motives are subject to temptations and build clicks, groups of those who are like minded.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
It all depends upon what one uses Wikipedia for. When it comes to cutting edge science it can be a bit unreliable, but then so it any unprofessional source. The popular press is wrong far too often when it comes to breaking science stories.
If it is politics one must be aware that there can be bias on either side. This page is in danger because of how people are contributing to it. When questionable sources are used far too often the accuracy of a page will suffer. The odds are that this will bring some support from the other side that will hopefully balance out and remove some of the poor sources.
But when used correctly Wikipedia is at least as reliable as any other encyclopedia. For settled science and history it is extremely useful. A research paper should go far beyond settled science and for that it is not of that much use.
Upvote
0
Jim Jones a Communist? Interesting read
Marx wrote that the proponents of crude communism remain very much mentally captive to private property:
General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed reestablishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it. (Marx 1977, 95, italics in original)
In other words, by dragging the private property of the rich down to the private property of the poor, the crude communist merely punishes the rich for their wealth without creating the conditions for actually overcoming (as opposed to suppressing for what proves to be a temporary period) private ownership of the means of production.
For Marxists, “The real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity” (Engels 1977, 132, italics in original). Crude communism “has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature of need, [so] that it remains captive to it and infected by it” (Marx 1977, 96, italics in original). It is this attempt to suppress efforts by individuals to satisfy their needs which more than anything else dooms communities founded on crude communism. Hence Marx’s statement that the development of productive forces “is an absolutely necessary practical premise [of communism], because without it privation, want is merely made general, and with want the struggle for necessities would begin again, and all the old filthy business would necessarily be restored” (Marx 1976, 54).
Jim Jones
Because he eschewed independent working-class action, Jones was dependent on the beneficence of the capitalist state in the form of welfare, housing, and other services that Jones could promise members of Peoples Temple, which in turn was linked to supporting Democratic and Republican politicians at different times in different contexts. There was, of course, another motivation, in that Jones made use of politicians to shield himself and the Temple (and Jonestown) from scrutiny, but that isn’t the subject of this article.
A logical conclusion was reached in Guyana, where Jones appealed to the ruling Peoples National Congress party for permission to establish Jonestown. Throughout the rest of Jonestown’s history, retaining the good graces of the corrupt and autocratic PNC remained a vital task for Jones, even though as an ostensible Marxist he should have been identified with the PNC’s rival, the Peoples Progressive Party.
Marx wrote that the proponents of crude communism remain very much mentally captive to private property:
General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed reestablishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it. (Marx 1977, 95, italics in original)
In other words, by dragging the private property of the rich down to the private property of the poor, the crude communist merely punishes the rich for their wealth without creating the conditions for actually overcoming (as opposed to suppressing for what proves to be a temporary period) private ownership of the means of production.
For Marxists, “The real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity” (Engels 1977, 132, italics in original). Crude communism “has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature of need, [so] that it remains captive to it and infected by it” (Marx 1977, 96, italics in original). It is this attempt to suppress efforts by individuals to satisfy their needs which more than anything else dooms communities founded on crude communism. Hence Marx’s statement that the development of productive forces “is an absolutely necessary practical premise [of communism], because without it privation, want is merely made general, and with want the struggle for necessities would begin again, and all the old filthy business would necessarily be restored” (Marx 1976, 54).
Jim Jones
Because he eschewed independent working-class action, Jones was dependent on the beneficence of the capitalist state in the form of welfare, housing, and other services that Jones could promise members of Peoples Temple, which in turn was linked to supporting Democratic and Republican politicians at different times in different contexts. There was, of course, another motivation, in that Jones made use of politicians to shield himself and the Temple (and Jonestown) from scrutiny, but that isn’t the subject of this article.
A logical conclusion was reached in Guyana, where Jones appealed to the ruling Peoples National Congress party for permission to establish Jonestown. Throughout the rest of Jonestown’s history, retaining the good graces of the corrupt and autocratic PNC remained a vital task for Jones, even though as an ostensible Marxist he should have been identified with the PNC’s rival, the Peoples Progressive Party.
Upvote
0
Jim Jones a Communist? Interesting read
Marx wrote that the proponents of crude communism remain very much mentally captive to private property:
General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed reestablishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it. (Marx 1977, 95, italics in original)
In other words, by dragging the private property of the rich down to the private property of the poor, the crude communist merely punishes the rich for their wealth without creating the conditions for actually overcoming (as opposed to suppressing for what proves to be a temporary period) private ownership of the means of production.
For Marxists, “The real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity” (Engels 1977, 132, italics in original). Crude communism “has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature of need, [so] that it remains captive to it and infected by it” (Marx 1977, 96, italics in original). It is this attempt to suppress efforts by individuals to satisfy their needs which more than anything else dooms communities founded on crude communism. Hence Marx’s statement that the development of productive forces “is an absolutely necessary practical premise [of communism], because without it privation, want is merely made general, and with want the struggle for necessities would begin again, and all the old filthy business would necessarily be restored” (Marx 1976, 54).
Jim Jones
Because he eschewed independent working-class action, Jones was dependent on the beneficence of the capitalist state in the form of welfare, housing, and other services that Jones could promise members of Peoples Temple, which in turn was linked to supporting Democratic and Republican politicians at different times in different contexts. There was, of course, another motivation, in that Jones made use of politicians to shield himself and the Temple (and Jonestown) from scrutiny, but that isn’t the subject of this article.
A logical conclusion was reached in Guyana, where Jones appealed to the ruling Peoples National Congress party for permission to establish Jonestown. Throughout the rest of Jonestown’s history, retaining the good graces of the corrupt and autocratic PNC remained a vital task for Jones, even though as an ostensible Marxist he should have been identified with the PNC’s rival, the Peoples Progressive Party.
Marx wrote that the proponents of crude communism remain very much mentally captive to private property:
General envy constituting itself as a power is the disguise in which greed reestablishes itself and satisfies itself, only in another way. The thought of every piece of private property as such is at least turned against wealthier private property in the form of envy and the urge to reduce things to the unnatural simplicity of the poor and crude man who has few needs and who has not only failed to go beyond private property, but has not yet even reached it. (Marx 1977, 95, italics in original)
In other words, by dragging the private property of the rich down to the private property of the poor, the crude communist merely punishes the rich for their wealth without creating the conditions for actually overcoming (as opposed to suppressing for what proves to be a temporary period) private ownership of the means of production.
For Marxists, “The real content of the proletarian demand for equality is the demand for the abolition of classes. Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity” (Engels 1977, 132, italics in original). Crude communism “has not yet grasped the positive essence of private property, and just as little the human nature of need, [so] that it remains captive to it and infected by it” (Marx 1977, 96, italics in original). It is this attempt to suppress efforts by individuals to satisfy their needs which more than anything else dooms communities founded on crude communism. Hence Marx’s statement that the development of productive forces “is an absolutely necessary practical premise [of communism], because without it privation, want is merely made general, and with want the struggle for necessities would begin again, and all the old filthy business would necessarily be restored” (Marx 1976, 54).
Jim Jones
Because he eschewed independent working-class action, Jones was dependent on the beneficence of the capitalist state in the form of welfare, housing, and other services that Jones could promise members of Peoples Temple, which in turn was linked to supporting Democratic and Republican politicians at different times in different contexts. There was, of course, another motivation, in that Jones made use of politicians to shield himself and the Temple (and Jonestown) from scrutiny, but that isn’t the subject of this article.
A logical conclusion was reached in Guyana, where Jones appealed to the ruling Peoples National Congress party for permission to establish Jonestown. Throughout the rest of Jonestown’s history, retaining the good graces of the corrupt and autocratic PNC remained a vital task for Jones, even though as an ostensible Marxist he should have been identified with the PNC’s rival, the Peoples Progressive Party.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 24,701
- 14,589
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Right, but there are certain systems and structures that make the outcome more likely (at least historically/statistically)
For things like Nazism/Fascism (like Germany and Italy during WW2), they certainly led to that outcome (thankfully, there haven't been too many modern regimes employing those systems), but those are more nationalistic-centered dictatorships, and not purely economic ones.
With regards to "Market Economy" vs. "Centrally Planned Economy where the state provides everything for everyone", the former has failed enough times (and led to the similar human rights abuses) enough to establish a pattern.
You'd be hard pressed to find a former communist regime that didn't abuse their people.
"Keeping people in line" isn't just an "unrelated trait" of centrally planned economies, it's a necessity if you want it to stay functioning for more than 2 days.
Under communism, since the state is obliged to pay for everything and provide everything, how does one handle the scenario of the guy who says "I know you said it's my job to go be a dishwasher...but I don't want to be a dishwasher, I want to be an artist"? If you need a janitor and not an artist, and you're obliged to keep covering his living costs, not much of an option besides "making him do it with any means required to get him to fall in line" (intimidation, use of force, etc...)
Whereas, in a market economy (even under a hybrid one like most modern governments have today), the thing that makes the aspiring artist go wash dishes is the fact that his art isn't very good (and thus, not selling) and he needs to make money to pay for expenses. A government doesn't have to use force in that scenario, the market forces of "satisfy a need that someone is willing to pay for, or go without" takes care of that without any "shots fired" so to speak.
That's not to say that market economies haven't had issues.
But I think you'll find that ratio of "number of people in breadlines, and living in grey block apartments with no functioning utilities" has been much higher under one type of economic system than the other.
As some of the cliches go:
"Capitalism isn't a great system, it's just the least terrible"
Or the version coined by South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang, who is far from a staunch free market guy, (he had plenty of critiques of capitalism and trickle-down economics): "capitalism is the worst economic system except for all the other forms" - he was putting a spin on an old Churchill quote when he said that.
I would say that history has shown those assessments to be accurate.
Capitalism has its flaws, but if you asked a guy who was living in squalid conditions because he can't find work if he'd rather trade with the guy living in Romania during the Soviet Era, who had to live in the same type of squalid conditions...except a soldier came to his house and forced him to go do construction work for 40 hours a week anyway, I think we all know what the answer would be.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
