| Revision as of 06:39, 11 December 2021 editRauisuchian (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,037 edits →Soviet and Communist studies: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:56, 19 January 2022 edit undoDavide King (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users104,427 edits →Soviet and Communist studies: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
| == Soviet and Communist studies == | == Soviet and Communist studies == | ||
| Thanks for your edits at ]. I found it especially interesting that "traditionalists" are not anti-communist or opposed to the ideal Marxist society — I wish all of this would contextualized and made more clear in most Communist-related articles because many users and readers simply take it as given that they were a form of socialism, rather than {{tq|"bureaucratic absolutism" almost Prussian in nature, where the "monarch was dependent on his bureaucracy"}} and that {{tq|the Soviet Union developed a "propensity for authoritarianism" after Marxian principles ''had failed to be established'' }} (Lewin), or {{tq|a tsarist autocracy, emphasized that the Soviet Union was not guided by socialism or ideology but more by ruling class}}, to quote your improving additions to the aforementioned article. | Thanks for your edits at ]. I found it especially interesting that "traditionalists" are not anti-communist or opposed to the ideal Marxist society — I wish all of this would contextualized and made more clear in most Communist-related articles because many users and readers simply take it as given that they were a form of socialism, rather than {{tq|"bureaucratic absolutism" almost Prussian in nature, where the "monarch was dependent on his bureaucracy"}} and that {{tq|the Soviet Union developed a "propensity for authoritarianism" after Marxian principles ''had failed to be established'' }} (Lewin), or {{tq|a tsarist autocracy, emphasized that the Soviet Union was not guided by socialism or ideology but more by ruling class}}, to quote your improving additions to the aforementioned article. | ||
| As an example, when one links Stalin to Lenin, one then links it to Marx, when I have read that Werth does trace the roots of Stalinist violence in Lenin, but Lenin is seen as a successor not of Marx but of Nechayev (who was criticized by Marx as "barracks communism"), and Werth emphasizes specific features of pre-revolutionary Russian society. I wish Communist-related articles would better contextualize this and make such distinctions rather than generalize like Communism's "real socialism" was indeed the only form of socialism in practice or that Marx was to blame for all its victims. The fact that so many users seem to believe this show that even "anti-Communist" sources and "traditionalists" are misread and given a more extreme picture than they are, and that Communist-related articles must be improved. ] (]) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | As an example, when one links Stalin to Lenin, one then links it to Marx, when I have read that Werth does trace the roots of Stalinist violence in Lenin, but Lenin is seen as a successor not of Marx but of Nechayev (who was criticized by Marx as "barracks communism"), and Werth emphasizes specific features of pre-revolutionary Russian society. I wish Communist-related articles would better contextualize this and make such distinctions rather than generalize like Communism's "real socialism" was indeed the only form of socialism in practice or that Marx was to blame for all its victims. The fact that so many users seem to believe this show that even "anti-Communist" sources and "traditionalists" are misread and given a more extreme picture than they are, and that Communist-related articles must be improved. ] (]) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| : Thanks, glad the edits could be helpful. Interesting mention of Marx's criticism of Nechayev as "barracks communism", which I hadn't read about previously. Later on ]'s critical view of the Bolsheviks is also significant. I agree there should be more nuances, references wise, in the coverage of the history of Marxism, communism, socialism, as well as anti-communism. As it is, a lot of these nuances are sometimes stuck only in specific biography articles. The distinction between more absolutist communist regimes and the ideology they claimed should definitely be mentioned when reliable sources mention it. Some of the traditionalists have indeed been anti-communist but often in a liberal form, rooted in anti-authoritarianism. ] (]) 06:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC) | : Thanks, glad the edits could be helpful. Interesting mention of Marx's criticism of Nechayev as "barracks communism", which I hadn't read about previously. Later on ]'s critical view of the Bolsheviks is also significant. I agree there should be more nuances, references wise, in the coverage of the history of Marxism, communism, socialism, as well as anti-communism. As it is, a lot of these nuances are sometimes stuck only in specific biography articles. The distinction between more absolutist communist regimes and the ideology they claimed should definitely be mentioned when reliable sources mention it. Some of the traditionalists have indeed been anti-communist but often in a liberal form, rooted in anti-authoritarianism. ] (]) 06:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::As you noted, there is plenty of Marxist criticism that is ignored, as if Marx/Marxism must have supported any policies the Communists did ''because''. I do agree with your analysis, and I also like this user's summary: <blockquote>{{tq|"I prefer the interpretation of Michael Harrington and others that Communism was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way '''had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise'''."}}<br><br>{{tq|"I have come to accept a view of Communist states that Michael Harrington and others have supported. Since Russia had no middle class, capital or international support for their overthrow of the czar, their only path forward was a system that relied on motivation and coercion. Once they had achieved industrialization, they were able to transform into a capitalist state. Although Communism was imposed on Eastern Europe, the only countries that followed the Russian example were less developed, such as China and Cambodia. Stalin told Mao not to copy the USSR, but to support capitalism, Ho Chi Minh wanted to copy the U.S. and Castro was opposed by Cuban Communists. So the 'socialist' system they introduced was really a step to capitalism."}} | |||
| ::I may add that they may have genuinely thought that was part of building socialism because capitalist industrialization and modernization was necessary but it is certainly more contextualized. This also seems to be supported by the ''Oxford Handbook of Communism'': <blockquote>"In his introductory essay, S. A. Smith acknowledges the basic contradiction within the conditions needed to propagate Communism, as outlined by Marx, and the reality of those states which actually adopted it practically. With certain notable exceptions, he shows that Communism often took root either as a direct result of war/colonial insurrection and/or within countries with authoritarian systems already in place 'changes of borders, the devastation caused by war, genocide and forced migration as a consequence of the imperial politics' that beleaguered Eastern Europe and that 'played an essential role in the establishment of communist regimes' (p. 204). Thus '''the basic premise is that Communism took root in countries which were unprepared economically and as a result, the implementation of it at a state level was flawed from the beginning'''." In {{cite journal|last=Cowe|first=Jennifer|date=October 2014|url=https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1664|title=The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism|journal=Reviews in History|issue=1664|access-date=19 January 2022}}</blockquote> | |||
| ::Anyway, what are your thoughts on ? While that can be certainly improved, I am not sure such big removal of sourced content that may well be relevant is warranted. ] (]) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:56, 19 January 2022
Rauisuchian, you are invited on a Misplaced Pages Adventure!
The
Adventure
|
Hi Rauisuchian!! You're invited: learn how to edit Misplaced Pages in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Misplaced Pages AdventureThis message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) |
Your submission at Articles for creation: Frondosa (disambiguation) has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.
Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!
KylieTastic (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Leocratides kimuraorum has been accepted
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.
Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!
DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Your submission at Articles for creation: Leocratides has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.
Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!
KylieTastic (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Got a quote?
I noted your edit to Pelorus Jack in which you said he was named after the Pelorus marine navigation aid, and not Pelorus Sound where he lived.. Seems logical but it's at odds with every attribution I have ever seen. Is it possible you can quote here what the Breverton book source says? Moriori (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- 2012 edition, "Pelorus Jack" entry . "At that time, when navigation was difficult, a 'pelorus' was a navigational instrument used to complement compass readings. Jack was so competent at guiding the ships that there was no need of the pelorus, and he became known as Pelorus Jack as a consequence". Admittedly, it's a tertiary source. Rauisuchian (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I have amended the page accordingly. Moriori (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- 2012 edition, "Pelorus Jack" entry . "At that time, when navigation was difficult, a 'pelorus' was a navigational instrument used to complement compass readings. Jack was so competent at guiding the ships that there was no need of the pelorus, and he became known as Pelorus Jack as a consequence". Admittedly, it's a tertiary source. Rauisuchian (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Greetings
Hello @Rauisuchian:! I've recently been involved in a small editing war on the Cryptozoology page, and your edit of the cryptozoology in art section for the page (which got deleted in a very similar fashion to the way my edit was deleted) has been brought up. If you're available, please consider giving the latest section in the Cryptzoology talk page a read. Also, I quite enjoyed your now-deleted addition to the article, it was not only relevant to the page but it was also very well sourced, contrary to what the users who deleted it claimed. Please be well. Joe (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I checked it out and left a comment. Though, be careful not to get into editing wars. After the first revert, just go to the talk page. Rauisuchian (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Cheers for the advice and for the suggestions on the proposal. Joe 02:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
'Soviet Empire' edits
Hi Rauisuchian. I'm here checking if you're still interested in discussing my edits in Soviet Empire as per WP:BRD as I'd like to reach consensus, be it with you or alone.
- Fasscass (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have responded on that talk page. Rauisuchian (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Brand new logo for Warner Music Group
I work for Warner Music Group. I see you have contributed in the past to the Warner Music Group article. There’s a brand new logo for WMG. I uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons as the representative of the company, but I know I’m not supposed to directly edit Misplaced Pages articles when I have a conflict of interest. Would you be able to take a look at the request to swap out the old logo and logo caption at Talk:Warner Music Group#Help switching to new logo ? Thank you so much for your consideration.Music2022 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Soviet and Communist studies
Thanks for your edits at Soviet and Communist studies. I found it especially interesting that "traditionalists" are not anti-communist or opposed to the ideal Marxist society — I wish all of this would contextualized and made more clear in most Communist-related articles because many users and readers simply take it as given that they were a form of socialism, rather than "bureaucratic absolutism" almost Prussian in nature, where the "monarch was dependent on his bureaucracy"
and that the Soviet Union developed a "propensity for authoritarianism" after Marxian principles had failed to be established
(Lewin), or a tsarist autocracy, emphasized that the Soviet Union was not guided by socialism or ideology but more by ruling class
, to quote your improving additions to the aforementioned article.
As an example, when one links Stalin to Lenin, one then links it to Marx, when I have read that Werth does trace the roots of Stalinist violence in Lenin, but Lenin is seen as a successor not of Marx but of Nechayev (who was criticized by Marx as "barracks communism"), and Werth emphasizes specific features of pre-revolutionary Russian society. I wish Communist-related articles would better contextualize this and make such distinctions rather than generalize like Communism's "real socialism" was indeed the only form of socialism in practice or that Marx was to blame for all its victims. The fact that so many users seem to believe this show that even "anti-Communist" sources and "traditionalists" are misread and given a more extreme picture than they are, and that Communist-related articles must be improved. Davide King (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, glad the edits could be helpful. Interesting mention of Marx's criticism of Nechayev as "barracks communism", which I hadn't read about previously. Later on Karl Kautsky's critical view of the Bolsheviks is also significant. I agree there should be more nuances, references wise, in the coverage of the history of Marxism, communism, socialism, as well as anti-communism. As it is, a lot of these nuances are sometimes stuck only in specific biography articles. The distinction between more absolutist communist regimes and the ideology they claimed should definitely be mentioned when reliable sources mention it. Some of the traditionalists have indeed been anti-communist but often in a liberal form, rooted in anti-authoritarianism. Rauisuchian (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- As you noted, there is plenty of Marxist criticism that is ignored, as if Marx/Marxism must have supported any policies the Communists did because. I do agree with your analysis, and I also like this user's summary:
"I prefer the interpretation of Michael Harrington and others that Communism was a method to bring about rapid industrialization in backward countries that lacked capital. In that sense it wasn't a step toward socialism but a step toward capitalism. Hence all successful Communist revolutions occurred in feudal or third world countries which by the way had no traditions of democracy, civil rights or private enterprise."
"I have come to accept a view of Communist states that Michael Harrington and others have supported. Since Russia had no middle class, capital or international support for their overthrow of the czar, their only path forward was a system that relied on motivation and coercion. Once they had achieved industrialization, they were able to transform into a capitalist state. Although Communism was imposed on Eastern Europe, the only countries that followed the Russian example were less developed, such as China and Cambodia. Stalin told Mao not to copy the USSR, but to support capitalism, Ho Chi Minh wanted to copy the U.S. and Castro was opposed by Cuban Communists. So the 'socialist' system they introduced was really a step to capitalism."
- I may add that they may have genuinely thought that was part of building socialism because capitalist industrialization and modernization was necessary but it is certainly more contextualized. This also seems to be supported by the Oxford Handbook of Communism:
"In his introductory essay, S. A. Smith acknowledges the basic contradiction within the conditions needed to propagate Communism, as outlined by Marx, and the reality of those states which actually adopted it practically. With certain notable exceptions, he shows that Communism often took root either as a direct result of war/colonial insurrection and/or within countries with authoritarian systems already in place 'changes of borders, the devastation caused by war, genocide and forced migration as a consequence of the imperial politics' that beleaguered Eastern Europe and that 'played an essential role in the establishment of communist regimes' (p. 204). Thus the basic premise is that Communism took root in countries which were unprepared economically and as a result, the implementation of it at a state level was flawed from the beginning." In Cowe, Jennifer (October 2014). "The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism". Reviews in History (1664). Retrieved 19 January 2022.
- Anyway, what are your thoughts on this? While that can be certainly improved, I am not sure such big removal of sourced content that may well be relevant is warranted. Davide King (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
- As you noted, there is plenty of Marxist criticism that is ignored, as if Marx/Marxism must have supported any policies the Communists did because. I do agree with your analysis, and I also like this user's summary: