Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:25, 13 July 2020

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing Authoritarianism and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Authoritarianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Brave new world predicted

Misplaced Pages is Big Brother, you sit there editing the past to conform to what is commonly assumed to be correct, you've started the end of human civilisation and freedom! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.31.9.88 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Indonesia

Im a french student living in indonesia. I've lived in Indonesia for 15 years now and doubt that indonesia is an authoritarianist nation. It definitely used to be under Suharto's regime, but it is no more. This is a free country and probably the only free and democratic country in south-east asia. Thailand is authoritarianist though, well at least if people believe that Thailand is free country, then Indonesia should also be considered a free country.

Could someone change the map since I don't have the technical ability to do it... 

Thankyou I think you took that book 1984 a little to seriosly. (anonomus) Oops I meant to put this on the one ubove.(anonomus)

Text dump - uncited

Authoritarianism and the Economy

In the late 20th-century political elites in East and Southeast Asia argued that countries with authoritarian regimes were more likely to be economically successful than democratic countries. Examples given to support this argument were South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, and Taiwan all of which were authoritarian and experiencing a period of rapid growth.

The belief that authoritarian governments were likely to economically out-perform democracies was reconsidered in 1997 during the Asian financial crisis.

There are of course many instances of authoritarian nations that have not encountered rapid economic growth. A good historical example is Spain in post-war Europe. More recent examples of poor economic performance in nations with authoritarian regimes are Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

Despite the Asian financial crisis the idea of developmental authoritarianism remains an attractive route to economic expansion in many developing nations. The Communist Party of China, which presides over the world’s fastest growing economy, uses this concept today as justification for its authoritarian rule.

While the link between political authoritarianism and economic growth may not be precisely understood, thinkers in anarchist and anti-authoritarian traditions have examined the "economy" itself as a realm of authoritarianism. In particular, similarities between business corporations and the state have often been highlighted. Both institutions are hierarchical, collective entities with clearly delineated chains of authority and command.

Category:Communism

A disagreement about property rights does not imply authoritarianism. Communists supports common property rights, so wanting to turn private property into common property does not make it authoritarian. By the same logic, capitalism is authoritarian because it denies common property rights, so whom do you think the common land belonged during the enclosure and the genocide of indigenous peoples? That was common property which was forcefully turned into private property. So what exactly is authoritarian about communism? Leninism and Marxism–Leninism may be authoritarian, but communism is not just that and communism itself does not advocate for one-part states and it is disingenuous to all communists and other socialists who fought that and died for it. At the very least, we would need strong reliable sources that link authoritarianism and communism, or that say communism is authoritarian, preferably avoiding anti-Communist ones. I think for the political ideologies to be listed as categories, we should only link fascism and Leninism (Marxism–Leninism, Nazism et al are already linked as categories at Totalitarianism and there is no need to repeat that here).

It would be more appropriate to use Category:Marxism rather than Category:Communism because Leninism and Marxism–Leninism are forms of Marxist communism, but I would oppose that for similar reasons. This is not like fascism which explicity makes it about authoritarianism or uses it as a core concept; and again, we would link scholarly sources that link Marxism as a whole to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism simply is not a core concept to communism or Marxism the way it is to fascism. This seems to be more based around the totalitarian twins concept. Davide King (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Disagree, the presense at Totalitarianism does not exclude inclusion here, and just to shorthening to eninism contradicts the mother article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, this does not change the fact we do need reliable sources that explicity reference to communism as a whole being authoritarian, not just Marxist–Leninist regimes. On Google Scholar, I could find it used in references to Marxist–Leninists regimes; and when they write of Communism, this is what they are talking about, not communism. There are more hits for "liberalism" "authoritarianism". Similarly, there are more hits for "authoritarian liberalism" than "authoritarian communism". Davide King (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It is evidently associated with Communism as well, not the number of results are decisive necessarily on this, moreover the general defintion and description similarly supports inclusion.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, that is your own personal opinion and original research/synthesis. For example, what is this general defintion and description similarly supports inclusion? Since you are the one who wants to add the category, the onus is on you to provide sources that support communism as a whole being authoritarian rather than Marxist–Leninists regimes. Davide King (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This . No it it is not my personal opinion, you presented as well sources that mentiones Communism (and it is either funny for such an evident thing like the relation of Communism and Authoritarianism you wish to identify as OR as well). Sorry, not I am the one who wants to add the category, it has been longstanding part of the article, you have to reach consensus for removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

References

1. https://www.britannica.com/topic/authoritarianism

KIENGIR, no mention of communism; if it was such as obvious and evident as you claim, it would be easy to find, but it is not and there is no mention of communism. I also do not see what political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people has to do with a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money and the state. One cannot simply easily ignore or disregard all the communists who rejected the Soviet Union and did that by 1918 already or even before October 1917, so it was not ipso facto; and if we had communism, we might as well add capitalism, conservatism, liberalism and socialism. After all, there is authoritarian capitalism, authoritarian conservatism, authoritarian liberalism and authoritarian socialism. I would support adding only fascism and Leninism because authoritarianism is considered a core concept and tenet of both. Davide King (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR, the sources that do mention communism are overwhelmingly referring to Marxist–Leninist regimes, i.e. one form of communism, not all communism; and I think that what they actually mean by communism is more important than merely mentioning communism as an euphemism for Marxist–Leninist regimes. If they use communism to mean Marxist–Leninist regimes, we should interpret that as references for Marxism–Leninism, not communism as a whole, i.e for Marxism–Leninism, not communism. All ideologies but fascism have a more authoritarian and less authoritarian strand. Davide King (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not say the article mentioned it, you wished to know the general definiton. What you quoted is not mutually exclusive. Opposition always existed, but it does not annihilate general charachteristics. If you wish to add further categories that fairly meets inlcusion, just go on, it will be checked either. Even there would be a significant reference to Marxist-Leninism, it still does not exclude other types, even if you wish to interpret like so. Here the issue is not if something more or less authoritarian.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, then what was your point if it did not mention it? This is not Misplaced Pages:Sky is blue. We do need an explicity statement from reliable sources that associate authoritarianism and communism and there needs to be some consensus among sources, preferably academic and scholarly ones. The fact it does not exclude other types should not be used as support to imply communism itself or as a whole is authoritarian. What you fail to realise is that we should probably only list ideologies whose core concept and tenet is authoritarian; authoritarianism is not a core concept of communism, just like it is not a core concept of liberalism and other ideologies, yet there have been authoritarian regimes of both. This is going nowhere, so I hope Bacondrum, C.J. Griffin, Jack Upland, Levivich and MarioGom, who did recently commented on this Talk:Totalitarianism or at Talk:Communism, can express their thoughts. My view is that we should only list fascism and Leninism here and fascism, Maoism, Marxism–Leninism and Nazism at Totalitarianism. Communism does not have neither categories while Leninism does have Authoritarianism and both Maoism and Marxism–Leninism also have Totalitarianism. Sources do refer to Leninism, Maoism and Marxism–Leninism as either authoritarian or totalitarian, but my view is that for communism is more complicated and is distinguished from Marxism–Leninism, so we should do the same. Davide King (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

You asked about it. I do not fail to realize anything, sources mention Communism, even if you wish to restrict their interpretation because some parts of it are referred more. What is apparent you try to soften anything contrary to Fascism, although all ideologies and their application had more x and/or less x strand, it reminds me again those struggles between the evaluation left-right ideologies and trying to deminuate one in connection of the other.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, as was noted below by Levivich, we do need reliable sources that make the connection and add them to the main body. You did not provide any. Until then, they should be removed. Davide King (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources mention Communism, as you presented, and Levivich is not totally right in everything what he describes, since Communism is mentioned by the examples.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, except as I noted, they refer to Marxist–Leninist regimes, not to communism as an ideology; and just because they use Communism as a word for Marxist–Leninist regimes, that does not justify using the Category for communism. However, it does justify it for Marxism–Leninism because that is essentially what they mean by it and this is what matters to determinate that. Davide King (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is your opinion and interpretation, although you even you said this demonstration is not exclusive (and both are ideologies as well).(KIENGIR (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, the same goes for you. You seem to conflate communism for Marxism–Leninism and Marxist–Leninist regimes. You also misinterpret sources that are explicity and clearly about Marxism–Leninism and Marxist–Leninist regimes as supporting your argument. For example, here you did misinterpret Rjensen writing Aron drew parallels between Soviet communism , Nazism and Italian Fascism. Aron considers all three political regimes to be totalitarian. Notice how it says Soviet and political regimes? In other words, this and other claims I found on Google Scholar can be used to support the claim Marxism–Leninism is authoritarian and that Marxist–Leninist regimes were totalitarian; they cannot be used for the claim that small-c communism is authoritarian or totalitarian, so it needs to be put as category, because that is not what the sources say. The fact you may think that just because Marxism–Leninism is Communist, then communism is too or that somehow warrants small-c communism category, is not supported by sources. If we have to, we should only put the authoritarian strands such as Marxism–Leninism and what sources actually refer to, not our own interpretation. Davide King (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

(responding to ping) The article doesn't say anything about the relationship between communism and authoritarianism, and for this reason, the article shouldn't be in Category:Communism. For the same reason, it shouldn't be in Category:Marxism–Leninism, or Category:Fascism. Surprising that the article doesn't say that fascism is a type of authoritarianism, but it doesn't, although Fascism does, and is properly in Category:Authoritarianism. Bottom line: categories should be supported by the body.

It doesn't matter if I think communism is or isn't a type of authoritarianism (isn't), it matters only whether reliable sources say it, and if so, we can add it to the article and then add the category. Until then, it and other unsupported categories should be removed.

Now, who do I see about getting paid my two cents? :-) Levivich  02:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, thanks for your comment. I essentially agree and I hope you can help us find and understand what reliable sources say. My understanding is that they do refer to fascism and Marxism–Leninism as authoritarian and consider authoritarianism to be a core principle or tenets but not to communism itself or communism as a whole (they do use Communism as an euphemism for Marxism–Leninism, yet they do distinguish between the two and we do and should do the same) but you are right that we should add them first to the main body and then as categories. It should be like we do for the lead; we need reliable sources that do confirm it in the main body. Davide King (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you to read my reply. The article is a general description of authoritarianism, examples are relevant, which do not contradict current categorization.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I did and I stand by my words because as correctly pointed out by Levivich, he article doesn't say anything about the relationship between communism and authoritarianism, and for this reason, the article shouldn't be in Category:Communism. You seem to see the definition of authoritarianism and believe it to fit communism (that is original research and synthesis) but it is up to reliable sources in establishing a connection between communism and authoritarianism; and they only do that in relation to Marxism–Leninist regimes, not to the broader communist ideology. Davide King (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

No way, you again misinterpret here the things again. What Levivich said, was partially fallacious and I described why. The article mentions Communism by the examples, so Levivich does not really got his two dollars, as well you should not invent any reason to systematically remove from articles the category of Communism (which are reinforced even the sources you refer of and you address to them your own interpretation admittedly).(KIENGIR (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, see my response above. How was Levivich's argument fallacious? Neither this article nor Communism mentions or link communism to authoritarianism, so Levivich is right that the added categories need to be supported by reliable sources in the main body. Either way, we are wasting our time; we are obviously going to agree to disagree, so let's wait for other users' imput. I for one would like to hear Levivich's response about your fallacy accusation, so please reply to me only above and let's leave this space for Levivich and others' response. Davide King (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, let also others to discuss. Btw., I just explained, read back Levivich in case. The article body contains the examples, which contains the association with Communism.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC))

Again, no mention of communism or something like "communism", just the usual Marxist–Leninist regimes. So the main body does support Marxism–Leninism, it does not support small-c communism. Nothing new. Davide King (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich does not really get his two dollars - Man, this coronavirus recession has been tough :-)

Per WP:CATV, WP:CATDEF, and WP:DEFINING, the article should say, with sources, that "communism" is a defining characteristic of "authoritarianism" before we can put the article Authoritarianism into Category:Communism. Not that communism is an example of authoritarianism, but that it's a "defining characteristic".

Similarly, we'd need the article Communism to say, with sources, that authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of communism before can put Communism into Category:Authoritarianism.

Personally, I don't think there are RSes that say either, but I could be wrong about that. I don't see those RSes in either article.

I think RSes say that authoritarianism is a defining characteristic of Marxism–Leninism, and thus we can put Marxism–Leninism into Category:Authoritarianism. However, I'm not sure if sources say that Marxism–Leninism is a defining characteristic (not just an example) of authoritarianism, and thus I don't think Authoritarianism should be in Category:Marxism–Leninism. Same for Fascism.

This is like "all cats are animals but not all animals are cats". Levivich  06:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree. I believe that is a correct interpretation of our guidelines. While there may well be some sources who consider even small-c communism authoritarian, there is not agreement among sources that it is a defining characteristic the same way it is for fascism. So please feel free to remove categories not verifiable in the main body. I would do that myself, but I am afraid KIENGIR is going to revert and I do not want to engage in edit warring, even though I believe the guidelines are clear and you are correct about that.--Davide King (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed categories Communism, Fascism, and Marxism-Leninism as not being sourced in the body. Levivich  17:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

FTR I agree with the re-addition of Category:Fascism because it also came with an expansion to the article body about the relationship between authoritarianism and fascism. Levivich  19:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course I have to restore the previous state, because the argumentation is again fallacious and no consensus were achieved. I.e. Vietnamese Communist Party is mentioned along others which share Communism, etc. Just because both of you are cherrypicking categories you like, remove others you don't like, although as I described the article has a general definiton, and examples are following. Now, as you two agreed on Fascism (as generally this goes next to the wish to the systematic elimination of Communism), you modify the article accordingly, to post-justify the cherrypicking.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC))

KIENGIR, no consensus was achieved to have it in the first place; there was no discussion before this one (on the other hand, there was one here which disputed it), so I suggest you to self-revert and discuss it. The Vietnamese Communist Party is Marxist–Leninist and may justify Marxism–Leninism as category but not authoritarianism as a core communist trait; on the other hand, you did unjustifiably reverted my addition about fascism. Finally, Levivich's arguments seem to be backed up by guidelines, so you keep complaining (or using personal attacks to falsely and wrongly accuse us the systematic elimination of Communism when that is supported by the guidelines and lack of sources, or repeating that it is a fallacy does not take you or us anywhere. Davide King (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I have actually read WP:CATV and I confirm that Levivich is indeed correct, so there is no fallacy. The only fallacy I see is you making original research and synthesis when sources and body do not support your claims.--Davide King (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR, please do the right thing and self-revert. There was no consensus in the first place; I saw the history of the article and it was simply added and removed back and forth. There was no discussion or consensus, but there have been users who have disputed that. So I believe you should revert and that the onus is on you for why it should be added since you are the one proposing that to be added, despite not following WP:CATV and you misinterpreting sources talking about and referring to Marxist–Leninist regimes, making a original research and synthesis out of them as they are supporting communism as category rather than what they are actually talking about and discussing, i.e. Marxism–Leninism. The fact that Communists in countries such as France, Italy, Portugal, Nepal, Spain and others have either been part of the democratic process or had a role in re-creating it after fascism, or how communists took part in Chiapas, Manchuria, Spain, Ukraine and others without creating a Communist state easily disprove communism as a category (Marxism–Leninism et al? Sure). The same cannot be said of fascism, the only ideology whose core characteristic is authoritarianism.--Davide King (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

KIENGIR, you have been edit warring and reverting everything, despite being reverted back by two different users and having users who do dispute your rationale for the addition, for which there was no consensus in the first place (it was added and removed back and forth without any discussion). So I invite Bacondrum, C.J. Griffin, The Four Deuces, Jack Upland, Levivich, MarioGom, Rjensen and whoever is reading this discussion to state their thoughts because you are being disruptive and falsely claiming to have consensus for the addition while rejecting mine and Levivich's call to follow WP:CATV's guidelines as fallacies. Same for Totalitarianism.--Davide King (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with you that Communism should be removed as a category, as Communism by definition - a classless and stateless society - is not authoritarian. Fascism, which is essentially authoritarian nationalism, clearly is. I will add that while Marxist-Leninist regimes (or Communist states) have been authoritarian, some Marxist-Leninist parties/orgs not in power, such as Communist Party USA, actually promote democratic values.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles