| Revision as of 10:40, 13 May 2009 editPasswordUsername (talk | contribs)5,580 edits →Current lede← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:44, 13 May 2009 edit undoPasswordUsername (talk | contribs)5,580 editsm →Current Lede IINext edit → | ||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
| Which is pretty different from the definition that it's supposed to be the citation for. | Which is pretty different from the definition that it's supposed to be the citation for. | ||
| What really doesn't sit right, though, is that you've essentially taken two separate explanations of the term: Gorbachev's ("Stalinism without political reprisals but with persecution and total control") and Clark's ("...they do not necessarily want a return to the Stalinism of large scale terror and the purges"). If they are used in two different ways, so we cannot just sum these together into "without large-scale repressions but with persecution of political opponents and total control of all political activities in the country" |
What really doesn't sit right, though, is that you've essentially taken two separate explanations of the term: Gorbachev's ("Stalinism without political reprisals but with persecution and total control") and Clark's ("...they do not necessarily want a return to the Stalinism of large scale terror and the purges"). If they are used in two different ways, so we cannot just sum these together into "without large-scale repressions but with persecution of political opponents and total control of all political activities in the country"{{ndash}}this is ]. Note that it is the combination you have created here, rather than the statements themselves that I find fault with. It is perfectly legitimate, I think, to present these views, but not by taking bits and pieces of one view and adding it onto another in the exact same sentence. At any rate, I think we could use something better than Gorby's quip in the lede itself, because "without political reprisals but with persecution" truly smacks of self-contradiction. ] (]) 10:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 11:44, 13 May 2009
 | This article was nominated for deletion on March 10, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Philosophy: Social and political Unassessed | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Soviet Union Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Modern Estonian usage
Here is a link in Finnish, that list Finns that Estonians, or at least one Estonian, consideres "Neo-Stalinist": "Neuvostonostalgiaa Suomessa" (Soviet nostalgy in Finland), Mediakatsaukset, (media review), published by the Finnish embassy in Tallinn on 26 June 2008. The original source of the views is Iivi Anna Masso. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In response to your thought that the idea of neo-Stalinism is a modern Estonian construct, I took the liberty to review a few modern Estonian sources discussing and advancing the peculiar notion that neo-Stalinism exists. Here's an incomplete list:
- Post-communist Transition: Political Tendencies in Hungary, by the modern Estonian author Bozóki András. Printed in 1990 in East European Politics & Societies, volume 4, issue 2, pages 211–230. I need not mention that the journal is known for its heavy Estonian bias.
- Khruschev's Economic Neo-Stalinism, by the modern Estonian author Lazar Volin. Printed in 1955 in the American Slavic and East European Review, a journal known for advancing Estonian ideas from half a century in the future.
- The Neo-Stalinist State: Class, Ethnicity and Consensus in Soviet Society, a book by an infamous Estonian historian Victor Zaslavsky. Printed in 1994 by M. E. Sharpe, a publishing company that publishes nothing at all but books about Estonia.
- Exit: Towards Post-Stalinism by Pavel Câmpeanu. This Estonian author is trying to hide his ethnicity by adding a funny diacritic, but I don't think he's able to deceive a person with eye for detail, such as yourself. Naturally, this book, too, was published by the above-mentioned M. E. Sharpe.
- review of Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse, 1970–2000, Russia and the Ides of the West, and Epokha Yeltsina: Ocherki politicheskoi istorii by a noted Estonian author Ilya Vinkovetsky. Printed in 2005 in Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, volume 6, issue 1, pages 241–252.
- Kuroda's Thought on Revolution: A Consideration of Neo-Stalinism and the Vanguard Organization, by 黒田寛一. This author is not only a well-known Estonian nationalist, he even went so far as to print his book in New Estonia, a small archipelago on the Western coast of the Pacific Ocean -- just like most other colonial territories.
Yep, nothing but Estonian sources at all. And they're all modern, too. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Neo-Stalinism and English meanings
Can somebody please provide a source–and I would strongly prefer if it were an English-language one for using Neo-Stalinism as "historical revisionism in favor of Stalinism"? In the political world, it's a sectarian insult among communists that's used against traditionally-implemented forms of Communism, even used against Khrushchevites by the Trotskyist tendency.
Because this article seriously resembles original research, and the question of just what neo-Stalinism is has a lot of bearing on the content of this article.
Respectfully, 166.217.128.203 (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this term is not well defined. At least I have no sources in mind from Political science that they use it. Neo-stalinism is used mainly as an insult by Trotskysts or followers of the New Left against followers of Brezhnev. Even Gorbachev could have been characterised as neostalinist. Usually, the term doesn't apply for Maoists of pro-Albanians. I think it more applies to currents that rejected Stalinism in 50s and 60s and now revise their positions in more pro-Stalinist. Some people from the exUSSR use it to characterise Putin as well. We really have to dig it up more by giving sources. The definition right now seems more like an Original research. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Some sources
- "The neo-Stalinist system, writes Pavlova, has "a modern facade, has been cleansed of Communist ideology, but has the same old essence. Stalin was more of a Russian nationalist and imperialist - that is why he, rather than Lenin, is so popular in Russia today. His rule was a culmination of Russia's state power, which became an inspiration for today's conservative patriots." The new Stalins must be kept in check By Alex Goldfarb.
- "The Federal Security Service (FSB) is working with Russian historians trained in Soviet times to rehabilitate the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" - see ,
- Rehabilitation of Stalinism in Russia according to Yuri Afanasiev -
- Some Russian sources: Biophys (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- The trouble as I see it, Biophys, is that none of these actually provide a definition for neo-Stalinism. Here it is not defined in a political sense, but rather used as a pejorative catch-used in different senses. It exists, but so do Neo-Reaganism and Neo-Clintonism; they have been used in various political senses, perhaps even defined (as I've seen at least one academic paper mentioning them), but there is no consensus on their use in general. I am all for the article since it describes this term, but I think that the lack of a definitive definition seriously hampers what can be done with it. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC) (the IP editor)
- P.S.: I'm pretty tired right now, but having looked over your Russian links, the term "neo-Stalinism" doesn't seem to occur in any of them (they seem to merely note more positive views of Stalin in the educational system, which is historical revisionism indeed, but where is this defined as "neo-Stalinism"?). Could you pinpoint where it's used? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- These refs are mostly about the alleged restoration of the "Neo-Stalinism" (whatever it is) in modern Russia. They do not provide an explicit definition of the term. One should look at the refs to see if they fit the subject of this article. Some of them are precisely on the subject, others perhaps not.Biophys (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure they can be interpreted to portray a swing in favor of "neo-Stalinism"–but only subjectively, that is, if we have already defined revised pro-Stalin historical analyses as constituting neo-Stalinism; I didn't notice the term even used, much less defined in those links. Although if you can point out its use, we could certainly add it as one sense of "neo-Stalinism" to this article. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, a lot of judgments in politics and social sciences are highly subjective. We must only provide a clear attribution. This is all. Remember, "verifiability, not truth".Biophys (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- "Verifiability, not truth" does not mean that we can pass off articles that do not use the term "neo-Stalinism" as references for giving a definition of it in the first sentence of the lede. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, a lot of judgments in politics and social sciences are highly subjective. We must only provide a clear attribution. This is all. Remember, "verifiability, not truth".Biophys (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure they can be interpreted to portray a swing in favor of "neo-Stalinism"–but only subjectively, that is, if we have already defined revised pro-Stalin historical analyses as constituting neo-Stalinism; I didn't notice the term even used, much less defined in those links. Although if you can point out its use, we could certainly add it as one sense of "neo-Stalinism" to this article. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- These refs are mostly about the alleged restoration of the "Neo-Stalinism" (whatever it is) in modern Russia. They do not provide an explicit definition of the term. One should look at the refs to see if they fit the subject of this article. Some of them are precisely on the subject, others perhaps not.Biophys (talk) 00:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Definition of the term
I am not sure that definition was correct. See here for example.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, that would be one usage. Although if your disagreement refers to the first definition in the article, that's the part that I have the gravest reservations about it. I've seen it used in various political senses, but never defined (or used) as "historical revisionism in favor of Stalin." PasswordUsername (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Let's take a look to Revisionism (Marxism). "The word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises. I don't know any ideological or political current that uses the term "revisionism" for Neo-Stalinism. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- That's actually supposed to be "historical revisionism" in that sentence. I mistyped, sorry. But I have seen no evidence of it even being used in this sense, let alone defined as such by an encyclopedia, a dictionary, or a non-partisan organization. (And for that matter, not even a partisan one.) Why is this the primary meaning we are given? PasswordUsername (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- If someone can provide a better definition, please write it down here.Biophys (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Biophys, I suggest we just say that it's an ambiguous term used in different senses by groups with different agendas, and simply chronice the various ways it is used. I have yet to see any evidence for its use as pro-Stalin historical revisionism, though. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I included a more clear definition per sources. Some sources indeed describe this as a "historical revisionism", but one should explain what this "revisionism" means.Biophys (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great job of all of you. I think here the term "revisionism" is given in is general way and not with the Marxism meaning. We have to be careful which link to add to the word revisionism then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the refs -- TIME ((1) and the World Socialist Website (2) don't actually use the term, so we can't use them as sources for defining it. The Jamestown article you added is a dead link (it actually links to something else --(3)). So we're back with Clark, but she's just one writer. Others -- for example, the Trotskyists -- have something completely different in mind when using the label. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I included a more clear definition per sources. Some sources indeed describe this as a "historical revisionism", but one should explain what this "revisionism" means.Biophys (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Biophys, I suggest we just say that it's an ambiguous term used in different senses by groups with different agendas, and simply chronice the various ways it is used. I have yet to see any evidence for its use as pro-Stalin historical revisionism, though. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- "'used in various senses"" is not definition of a term. Please provide some definition per sources. I fixed link. The term was used in a definite sense in cited sources (it had precisely the meaning I included). Link to Jamestown foundation was corrected. Biophys (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Biophys, look at the links. I have reverted thrice, so you obviously have the upper hand by going back now to your own version, which does not define neo-Stalinism in three out of four refs. Clark gives some definition of neo-Stalinism (at least, she uses the word to give her sense of it). The other links do not. How can you use them as references for the definition? The Jonestown link still doesn't work: it now links to a blank page with the words
"no news_id given
- Biophys, look at the links. I have reverted thrice, so you obviously have the upper hand by going back now to your own version, which does not define neo-Stalinism in three out of four refs. Clark gives some definition of neo-Stalinism (at least, she uses the word to give her sense of it). The other links do not. How can you use them as references for the definition? The Jonestown link still doesn't work: it now links to a blank page with the words
Email this article to a friend"
-PasswordUsername (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you have alternative definitions of the term per sources, you are welcome to include them. All sources I have seen (currently in the article) use it in the same sense as Clark.Biophys (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will include the others. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Great. But unfortunately your citation does not really defines the meaning of the term.Biophys (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Petty. I said Draper "referred" to neo-Stalinism as, which contributes to the article, so I'm not sure why you're highlighting the semantics here. I'm not the one adding fake references purporting to define the concept. (What was the point of deleting my edit to put in place yours? Because it's better to define "Stalinism" as fascism than anti-socialism from your point of view, when Draper subscribes to both?) PasswordUsername (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will include the others. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you have alternative definitions of the term per sources, you are welcome to include them. All sources I have seen (currently in the article) use it in the same sense as Clark.Biophys (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- this edit looks like a WP:Copyvio to me. Besides, such extensive citation of a single source does not make the article better. I think this belongs to Planned economy. Biophys (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Did I cite too much? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we suppose only to briefly summarize main idea of the source. But its OK to keep your text in footnote is someone wants to look at the details.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm sure just citing a series of eight bullet points (about 2-3 paragraphs) qualifies as fair use. There are no specific guidelines as far as I know–Misplaced Pages says that how much is quoted is based on the proportion of the excerpted material to the original work. What leads you to believe that it is okay to put into the references section what cannot be put into the main body of the article? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- This is huge and not informative text that would make this article unreadable. We must be concise per WP:MOS.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm sure just citing a series of eight bullet points (about 2-3 paragraphs) qualifies as fair use. There are no specific guidelines as far as I know–Misplaced Pages says that how much is quoted is based on the proportion of the excerpted material to the original work. What leads you to believe that it is okay to put into the references section what cannot be put into the main body of the article? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, we suppose only to briefly summarize main idea of the source. But its OK to keep your text in footnote is someone wants to look at the details.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Zyuganov
"In 2005, Communist politician Gennady Zyuganov said that Russia "should once again render honor to Stalin for his role in building socialism and saving human civilization from the Nazi plague."
Is this supposed to be evidence of Zyuganov's neo-Stalinism? So, is he neo-Stalinist for expressing a positive view of some of Stalin's historical role? Stalin's role in building socialism might be "socialism in one country" or it might be the industrialization of the Five-Year Plan, and gratitude for beating the Nazis seems kind of decent. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The sentence has to be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why? Indeed, he expressed a positive view of some of Stalin's historical role, which was interpreted as a glorification of Stalin (Neo-Stalinism) in cited source. How about someone expressing a positive view of some of Hitler's historical role? Same thing.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- What about Western glorification of Stalin's historical role during World War II? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- If such things have been described as "Neo-Stalinism", they belong here.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, they have not, and this might have something to do with the adequacy of the criterion. What, in practice, constitutes the difference between "praise" and "glorification" in regard to someone like Stalin? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- No difference. You can call this either way.Biophys (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, then the definition has problems. There was a poll in Russia last year I think and Stalin was among the 3 or 4 most important figures. Does that mean that 40% (I don't know the exact number is just an example) of Russian are Neo-Stalinists? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was indeed described in many sources as rise of Stalinism and Stalinist attitudes in Russia. As about "neo", this is less frequently used.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you really think that any praise for Stalin's actions makes one a "neo-Stalinist," is my Jewish grandmother a Stalinist for praising Stalin for defeating Nazi Germany or crediting the industrialization policy for that defeat? Because this seems like your accusation against Zyuganov. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Soviet Union lost around 25 million soldiers and civilians in the Second World War. The question follows, did the casualty rate have to be so high? Or were so many lives lost due to Stalin's mismanagement of the armed forces? We can thank the people for defeating Hitler, but condemn Stalin for inviting disaster with his murderous repressions and pact with Hitler. Martintg (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. But is praising something Stalin did well a sure indicator that one is a "neo-Stalinist"? A whole lot of people who have praised things like the Soviet Union's first 5-Year-Plan, say, have criticized Stalin on various grounds, such as the bloodletting and terror during the Great Purges. What's the criterion, exactly? PasswordUsername (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Soviet Union lost around 25 million soldiers and civilians in the Second World War. The question follows, did the casualty rate have to be so high? Or were so many lives lost due to Stalin's mismanagement of the armed forces? We can thank the people for defeating Hitler, but condemn Stalin for inviting disaster with his murderous repressions and pact with Hitler. Martintg (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you really think that any praise for Stalin's actions makes one a "neo-Stalinist," is my Jewish grandmother a Stalinist for praising Stalin for defeating Nazi Germany or crediting the industrialization policy for that defeat? Because this seems like your accusation against Zyuganov. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- That was indeed described in many sources as rise of Stalinism and Stalinist attitudes in Russia. As about "neo", this is less frequently used.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, then the definition has problems. There was a poll in Russia last year I think and Stalin was among the 3 or 4 most important figures. Does that mean that 40% (I don't know the exact number is just an example) of Russian are Neo-Stalinists? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- No difference. You can call this either way.Biophys (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, they have not, and this might have something to do with the adequacy of the criterion. What, in practice, constitutes the difference between "praise" and "glorification" in regard to someone like Stalin? PasswordUsername (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- If such things have been described as "Neo-Stalinism", they belong here.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- What about Western glorification of Stalin's historical role during World War II? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Current lede
The first sentence, currently, reads "Neo-Stalinism is a term that describes rehabilitation and glorification of Joseph Stalin, restoration of Stalinist policies, or a moderated Stalinist state, "without political reprisals but with persecution and total control.' "
The last part is the definition by Katherine Clark. What exactly does it mean to have a politics "without political reprisals but with persecution"? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- I fixed this a little.Biophys (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. Those quotation marks kind of fooled me–it wasn't even from her. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was from another source.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Which source was it that read "without political reprisals but with persecution and total control"? PasswordUsername (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- that one.Biophys (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Gorby's just brilliant. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- that one.Biophys (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Which source was it that read "without political reprisals but with persecution and total control"? PasswordUsername (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was from another source.Biophys (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. Those quotation marks kind of fooled me–it wasn't even from her. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Current Lede II
Biophys, I'm glad we got rid of the necessarily self-contradictory above one-liner from Gorbachev, but I'm not too happy with the current lede:
"Neo-Stalinism is a term that describes rehabilitation and glorification of Joseph Stalin, restoration of Stalinist policies, or a moderated Stalinist state, without large-scale repressions but with persecution of political opponents and total control of all political activities in the country "
The first ref, of course, is the old Gorby link; the second one is Clark, but she doesn't write about glorification; in fact, the context to which you linked is actually:
Since the mid-sixties, the advocates of destalinization have encountered strong opposition. Some authors have broken the taboo of the Khrushchev years and have praised the Stalin era and its leaders. This tendency, the so-called neo-Stalinism, must not be confused with Stalinism itself. The neo-Stalinists look to the Stalin era as a time of unity, strong rule, and national honor, but they do not necessarily want a return to the Stalinism of large scale terror and the purges.2
Which is pretty different from the definition that it's supposed to be the citation for.
What really doesn't sit right, though, is that you've essentially taken two separate explanations of the term: Gorbachev's ("Stalinism without political reprisals but with persecution and total control") and Clark's ("...they do not necessarily want a return to the Stalinism of large scale terror and the purges"). If they are used in two different ways, so we cannot just sum these together into "without large-scale repressions but with persecution of political opponents and total control of all political activities in the country"–this is WP:SYNTH. Note that it is the combination you have created here, rather than the statements themselves that I find fault with. It is perfectly legitimate, I think, to present these views, but not by taking bits and pieces of one view and adding it onto another in the exact same sentence. At any rate, I think we could use something better than Gorby's quip in the lede itself, because "without political reprisals but with persecution" truly smacks of self-contradiction. PasswordUsername (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories:- Unassessed Philosophy articles
- Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
- Unassessed social and political philosophy articles
- Unknown-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- Stub-Class Soviet Union articles
- Low-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles