Talk:Scientific communism

Add criticism by Leszek Kolakowski

This article needs references. The monumental book "Main Currents of Marxism" by Leszek Kolakowski is a good candidate. MaxPont (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge

This article should be merged with Scientific Socialism MaxPont (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete

This article has been without references for over ten years. Isn't it time to delete the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin5152414 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Is communism an actual science?

Shouldn't it say that it is/was claimed to be a science, not that it is a science? Polar Apposite (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If you find a reliable reference from an expert that it was not science, you are welcome to improve the article. - Altenmann >talk 18:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

All the references are of stuff written by communists, it seems, which means they are not reliable judges of what is the true nature of the communism. You might as well state as a fact that Christian Science is the one true religion, and cite some books written by Christian Scientists that say it is.

The article should state the fact that some communists have claimed scientific communism is a science, unless a reliable reference is found that says that scientific communism really is a science.

At the very least there should be one of those notices I've seen on Wikipedia that warns that the article relies entirely on primary sources, and requests that additional references that are not from primary sources be added.

The burden of proof is on whoever claims that "communist science" is an actual sciene, not on whoever says that there is no evidence that it is. Polar Apposite (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I modified the lede a bit to address your concern. (BTW, communist sources cited are not primary. At best they may be described as "biased". Apropos Communists argue that it is science, because it uses scientific method, starting from Marx's Das Kapital. (That it turned into dogma rather science in the Soviet Union is beside the point. After all, we do not call Aether theories or Caloric theory pseudoscience; these were bona fide scientific attempts. Just the same, the fact that scientific communism was based on shaky premises is beside the point either).

Well; enough of this chat; if google turns something up for "pseudoscience"+"scientific communism" usable in wikipedia, you will see it here. (under "usable" I mean not just a name calling. If someone is called "fascist" not at all means he is a follower of Mussolini. Just the same, the source must argue that SciCom is a pseudo, not jus slaps an anti-Communist label on it. For example, I saw one sourse that claims that SciCom is not falsifiable hence not science. But I suspect the author does not grasp what falsifiability means: Communism is perfectly falsifiable, both in theory and in practice. - Altenmann >talk 02:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say you definitely improved the article with your changes to the lede.

Thanks for making me realize that I had a different idea of what "primary sources" means according to Wikipedia. I'm puzzled now. What is the point of those notices that say "This article depends entirely on primary sources", which is what I recall seeing. Maybe they said something different. What I took away was that Wikipedians were often posting notices complaining that the article poorly sourced because for example the article about some cult, say, was based entirely on materials published by that cult. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.

What you link to contains matches what Google hits contain regarding the meaning of "primary sources", so I seem to have been using a wrong definition. The reason may (or may not) be how the term really was used in Wikipedia notices that I've seen over the years.

If primary sources are eye-witness accounts, photographs, recordings, and so on, why on earth would anyone complain that an article was based entirely (or "excessively" as I think most of the notices complained) on them? Item five in your link says, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." So this really is Wikipedia policy.

So I can't be blamed, I think, for not guessing at the meaning of the notice, because it is so counterintuitive. Even now I can hardly believe it.

I'd appreciate it if you would explain the rationale behind item five. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Re:item five: The policy says it all: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

In my experience I noticed two major issues: (*1) primary sources such as scientific articles may become obsolete (*2) wikieditors easily slip into interpretations of primary sources; even small ones may be dubious. (*3) Translations of primary sources from foreign languages can be faulty and wikipedians can easily introduce bias with seemingly innocent tweak of wording, especially recently when people started using "google translate". I fixed quite a few stupidities of this type. (Of course, the latter issue also plagues translations of secondary sources, but when there are secondary sources, it means the subject is reasonably notable and statements can be doube-checked from other sources). - Altenmann >talk 18:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Caloric theory was, *in its time*, genuine, and very good, science, but today a "caloricist" or "caloric theorist", to coin a term or two perhaps, probably would be called a pseudoscientist if he argued today that caloric theory was true. If anyone promoted a medical treatment, or other technology, based on it, he would probably be accused of basing his treatment on a pseudoscience. If he made money off by selling it in the US, he could be accused of, and arrested for a crime, like the "orgone energy" guy, when he was selling his orgone energy machines in the US. That guy, who seemingly was a crank who sincerely and passionately believed in the idea had come upt with which he called "orgone energy", went to jail. Of course, part of the problem was that the machines appeared to do nothing at all, in the eyes of the authorities. There might have actually been an effect, if only some sort of placebo effect. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to see that source that said communism is not falsifiable. Do you have link? Why do you think communism is falsifiable in theory and practice? Polar Apposite (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, it wasn't like the US threw him in jail just for being a pseudoscientist.

The orgone energy guy was a qualified medical doctor from Austria named Wilhelm Reich. He wasn't jailed in the US for his teachings nor even, strictly speaking, for selling his "machines", nor for making a lot of money from selling them, but for contempt of court, after he continued to sell them in violation of a court injunction. So he kind of brought the jail sentence on himself. By the way, he was a member of the Austrian communist party. In 1956 USA, that would *not* have helped.

Says Wikipedia in the Wilhelm Reich article:

"Following two critical articles about him in The New Republic and Harper's in 1947, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration obtained an injunction against the interstate shipment of orgone accumulators and associated literature, calling them "fraud of the first magnitude". Charged with contempt in 1956 for having violated the injunction, Reich was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and that summer over six tons of his publications were burned by order of the court. He died in prison of heart failure just over a year later.

Burning six tons of his publications makes the court look bad in the history books, I think. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of looking bad in the history books, Time magazine lied about the reason he was in jail stating in their obituary:

"[...]he was serving a two-year term for distributing his invention, the "orgone energy accumulator" (in violation of the Food and Drug Act), a telephone-booth-size device [...]".

Like I said, it was for contempt of court. Polar Apposite (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The article is was based solely on communist sources, i.e., it is inherently biased. The article needs references from sholarly sources independent of communism. - Altenmann >talk 18:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I added some independent info, but much more is needed and I am rather lazy. - Altenmann >talk 20:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

More is needed, certainly.

You haven't been lazy today, with about a dozed edits of the article. You deserve a Stakhanovite award. I wonder what is the procedure when nominating someone for that on Wikipedia :) Polar Apposite (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)