User:AmateurEditor/Engels and genocide thread

AmateurEditor

Diff for my initial response

...Next we have this odd passage:
 * In his book "The Lost Literature of Socialism", George Watson says, "The Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide for reasons implicit in its claim that feudalism, which in advanced nations was already giving place to capitalism, must in its turn be superseded by socialism. Entire nations would be left behind after a workers' revolution, feudal remnants in a socialist age, and since they could not advance two steps at a time, they would have to be killed. They were racial trash, as Engels called them, and fit only for the dung-heap of history."[10]

OK, again, there is no use of the term "communist genocide". This quote is particularly troubling as it violates NPOV flagrantly -- it states as fact that Marxist theory demands genocide and bases this opinion on a bizarre misreading of this essay by Engels (which nowhere that I can find mentions "racial trash"). Then we cite this in Wikipedia as if it were a definitive theory of "communist genocide," even though there is no indication that Watson ever defined the term or that his theory has any currency among scholars of Marxism or genocide. ... csloat (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * About your criticisms of the Watson quote from "The Lost Literature of Socialism", I'd like to make a few points. First, I don't think it does violate NPOV because it does not state as fact that Marxism demands genocide, but rather attributes that conclusion to Watson based on Engels' writing. Maybe that distinction can be made more clear by changing the first sentence. Second, I think it is important to remember that the Engels article was originally written in German, so there may be differences in translation. I read the translation you linked and I assume the phrase Watson translates as "racial trash" is translated there as "residual fragments of peoples." I don't know which translation is better. Your link is helpful, however, because it's a translation provided by marxists.org. I think we can safely assume that their translation is, if anything, going to err on the side of giving Engels the benefit of the doubt on any ambiguous wording. With that in mind, the following quotations are hard to explain away:
 * "...these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution."
 * "All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm."
 * "The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names."
 * "The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."
 * AmateurEditor (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So in other words, Watson got even the author wrong? According to Engels, we are dealing with a quote from Hegel here, not Engels: "These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples."  And I'm not sure what you mean about "explaining away" these quotations; the question is whether Watson is right that Engels is advocating racial genocide here, which he does not appear to be.  He's describing a world war he considers inevitable -- this is classic propaganda to be sure, but hardly an argument for genocide.  (According to Marx and Engels, an inevitable world communist revolution would wipe out ALL nations, not just the "racial trash.")  This is about a notion of the inevitable triumph of global revolution, not about the inevitable triumph of white people or some other ethnic group.
 * Anyway I'm not sure where you want to go with this -- a debate over whether international communism is a murderous enterprise simply doesn't translate into "communist genocide." If it does, I would think the "other side" ought be represented here too, such that multiple sources who argue that world communism is the only solution to the inherent murderousness of capitalism.  There are many many sources who make such claims, yet nobody has tried to make Capitalist genocide an article because the connection of those claims to a concept of "capitalist genocide" is an illegitimate synthesis of original research.  Does this help your understanding? csloat (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear which part of that sentence was "as Hegel says". But assuming for the sake of argument that the entire sentence was from Hegel, Engels then goes on to adopt the term himself after specifically naming three groups he believes it applies to. Peoples who will require "complete extirpation" because "their whole existence in general is itself a protest" against a revolution. And, according to the article, a world communist revolution would not wipe out all nations (read: "peoples", not "states"), because he specifically says it will be "all other large and small nationalities and peoples" in Austria except those he had just singled out for praise ("the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars"). And it is certainly not an issue of simple inevitability. This is, as you say, "propoganda". He is trying to motivate others to bring this about. He wants it to happen. And these "residual fragments of peoples" are not going to "extirpate" themselves. The people who will do it when the time comes, the people of the "world revolutionary storm", are people much like his readers. And just to be clear, he makes sure the very last sentence of the article rearticulates his point that "the disappearance from the face of the earth" of entire peoples is "a step forward".


 * What more do you want from him? You can't very well expect him to say "I want genocide!" as the term hadn't been invented yet. It's important in any event to remember that the word was invented before the UN decided on a legal definition for it. Words often have more than one variation of meaning, especially between legal meanings and colloquial ones. To adhere strictly to one and deny the other's existence is not constructive. To insist that the phrase "Communist genocide" likewise means only what you take it to mean is also not constructive. It may in fact simply mean genocide by communists. If you have a better title for the article, try to convince others of its merit. And if you want to try to start an article called "Capitalist genocide", you're welcome to try. But I hope you have an article from Adam Smith as damning as this one. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is actually very clear what part of the sentence was "as Hegel says" since the quoted part is in italics (and, indeed, much of what Engels has to say in this essay is utterly Hegelian). But had Watson properly attributed the quote to Hegel rather than Engels, it would have taken the fun out of his diatribe (perhaps we should start a Hegelian genocide article next?)  There is no doubt that Engels thinks the global revolution he describes is a positive thing, but our disagreement is over whether it is a *genocidal* thing.  For the international communist, ALL races/cultures/nations must give way to the international revolution.  Again, one could debate about whether this is a murderous adventure, but to equate it with "genocide" is to misunderstand fundamentally the essence of international communism.  (And please understand that I do not speak as an advocate of it -- I would probably agree with Watson that it *is* a murderous venture).
 * As for "capitalist genocide," I could fill this page with quotes from Thomas Malthus that seem equally to delight in the murder of innocents and show how they are directly derived from Adam Smith's influence, and I could even cite multiple reliable sources who opine that capitalism is inherently a global ethnocidal project. But to connect the two and claim that these form evidence of an external concept that we can call "capitalist genocide" is the essence of WP:SYN.  Hopefully this is getting clearer? csloat (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "As for "capitalist genocide," I could fill this page with quotes from Thomas Malthus that seem equally to delight in the murder of innocents" ... uh, what??? First I think you're completely missing the point on Malthus (though I'm slightly impressed that you've actually heard of him) and second Malthus was not writing about the "capitalist" world as that only began to emerge at the time of his writing, but rather about the feudal, or pre-capitalist one - as Marx said himself.radek (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that's exactly my point. To draw definitive conclusions about "capitalism" or even worse "capitalist genocide" from such quotes would be clearly inappropriate.  But that is exactly what you guys want to do with "communist genocide." csloat (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are words sprinkled throughout the entire essay in italics. But I conceded for the sake of argument that the entire sentence could be attributed to Hegel. It doesn't matter. It's not in quotes. Engels chose to paraphrase or repeat what Hegel had said and use the term again because it conveyed what he was trying to say. In re-using those words to express his own ideas, he made them his own, and Watson was perfectly in the right to attribute them to him.


 * But your objection is with the word "genocide". And whether or not it can apply to the murderous action of communists. In my opinion, Engels is a more authoritative source on what communism is than you are, and he clearly associates specific ethnic groups with extermination at the hands of communist revolutionaries due to their historic backwardness. How do you define genocide in this case? Are you using the UN definition? Why does it not apply? Would your objections go away if we used "Mass killings by communists" or some similar phrasing for the article? AmateurEditor (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First, if we agree that this is part of Engels' philosophy that is Hegelian, then the appropriate name for this article is "Hegelian genocide." Do you want to move the article?  Second, you are not exactly correct that Engels "clearly associates specific ethnic groups with extermination" -- it is ALL ethnic groups that would be exterminated in such a revolution.  Equating that with genocide is possible but it is not the only reading of this (and certainly most people who identify as "communists" today would reject such an interpretation).  Third, even if you are right about all of these things, basing an article about "communist genocide" on this one obscure article from Engels (which never actually uses either word) is still a massive SYNTHESIS violation.  We keep coming back to this.  As for changing the name of the article, I have already supported such suggestions, "mass killings by communist regimes" or something of the sort would be much better than this.  But with such a change, comments like this about something Engels said in 1849 would have to go.  That, or we open things up and have a litany of back and forth on both sides of the argument (such a page, I think, would be an even bigger nightmare than this one). csloat (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume you aren't serious about the "Hegelian genocide" name change. However, I do think it would be a good idea to rename the article, for the sake of consensus. I encouraged the discussion to that end earlier on this page, and previously on the deletion review page.


 * As for Engels clearly associating specific ethnic groups with extermination at the hands of revolutionaries, I'll quote three places from his article where he says that some but not all nations will or should be wiped out:
 * "Among all the large and small nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and still retain their vitality — the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm. For that reason they are now counter-revolutionary."


 * "There is no country in Europe which does not have in some corner or other one or several ruined fragments of peoples, the remnant of a former population that was suppressed and held in bondage by the nation which later became the main vehicle of historical development. These relics of a nation mercilessly trampled under foot in the course of history, as Hegel says, these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution. Such, in Scotland, are the Gaels, the supporters of the Stuarts from 1640 to 1745. Such, in France, are the Bretons, the supporters of the Bourbons from 1792 to 1800. Such, in Spain, are the Basques, the supporters of Don Carlos. Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the residual fragment of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development."


 * "The Magyars are not yet defeated. But if they fall, they will fall gloriously, as the last heroes of the 1848 revolution, and only for a short time. Then for a time the Slav counter-revolution will sweep down on the Austrian monarchy with all its barbarity, and the camarilla will see what sort of allies it has. But at the first victorious uprising of the French proletariat, which Louis Napoleon is striving with all his might to conjure up, the Austrian Germans and Magyars will be set free and wreak a bloody revenge on the Slav barbarians. The general war which will then break out will smash this Slav Sonderbund and wipe out all these petty hidebound nations [referring to the Sonderbund nations], down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward."


 * But even if I am right about all these points, yes, basing an article called "communist genocide" on this one obscure article from Engels (which never actually uses either word) would be a massive synthesis violation. True. But that is not the situation here. This article is not based on this one article from Engels. It is supported, in part, by a passage from a book which cites Engels' article to make a larger point that "the Marxist theory of history required and demanded genocide". It is that larger point which is relevant to the wikipedia article (although I doubt it should be in the lead section). And, if we were to change the name of the article to "Mass killings by communist regimes" or something similar, the passage from Watson certainly could be kept in an appropriate section, with an appropriate context given. "Mass killings" is a more inclusive phrase than genocide, not less. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All we can say is that Watson has an unusual opinion that is disputed by other scholars of communism. Leaping from "Engels wrote one article that can be read as supporting genocide" to "communism demands genocide" is a pretty idiotic leap of logic, as many scholars have pointed out -- if you look up the actual quote (not the "racial trash" mistranslation) in google books you'll find a number of books that discuss this essay and argue that this essay does not even represent "communism."  (Which is rather obvious, given that it is Hegelian through and through).  Again, the best this gets us to is a theory of Hegelian genocide, which you agree is laughable.  In any case, I think this quote can stay if there was a section titled something like "Does Marxist theory require mass killings?" where various published views on the question are put in dialogue, but I think it is a severe POV violation to have this quote placed here with no response as if it were an obvious, unproblematic, uncontested point. csloat (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One more thing actually ... you stated that "This article is not based on this one article from Engels. It is supported, in part, by a passage from a book which cites Engels' article to make a larger point" -- That is actually part of the problem. Read WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  That's the whole problem with this essay.  Watson's reading of Engels is being used to "support" the article's conclusion "in part."  In order to get to the article's conclusion -- a verifiable and well established concept called "communist genocide" -- Watson's comments must be put into conversation with other sources that they are not already in conversation with.  These various sources together are then used to stitch together an argument -- Watson accuses Engels of genocidal thoughts, Harry Wu compares Nazi concentration camps to Soviet gulags, John Gray speaks of the genocide of the Kalmucks, NAthanial Weyl writes of "political aristocide," etc.  These general quotes (which are at least related in some thin way) are used to establish the basis for a laundry list of deaths attributed to various governments which are alternatively described as "communist" "socialist" "democratic peoples regimes" etc. Then we have legal charges, supposedly of a crime of "communist genocide" even though there is no law in the world outlawing "communist genocide" specifically.  Then the denial laws (which are not about a "concept" of "Communist genocide" but about specific historical events) are thrown in for good measure.  To conclude that all of these sources are connected by way of a theory of "communist genocide" that dates back to an article by Engels in 1849 is a synthesis. csloat (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Communism as a topic in general is controversial. Even today it has its defenders. That a negative assertion, such as the one Watson makes, is disputed says next to nothing about its merit. And despite your distortion, Watson's logic is hardly idiotic. Your logic about "Hegelian genocide", on the other hand, is baffling. And ironic, considering that it would be the most blatant example of WP:NEO, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH I have ever seen. The phrase is virtually unknown. It gets zero hits on google books, zero hits on google scholar, and one hit on google web search (from Uncyclopedia, no less). About looking up the "residual fragments of peoples" quote in google books, can you provide some examples showing that the Engels essay was about something other than communism? Was he writing about some other "world revolutionary storm"? If you have proper sources which argue that communism was incidental to all the mass killings, then I could support including them.


 * But to say that the quote is synthesis because it makes a larger point about marxism requiring genocide based in part on Engels' essay is to fundamentally misunderstand the concept. Sources are supposed to engage in synthesis within themselves, that's what they do. Every source synthesizes information within itself to create new content. WP:SYNTH prohibits wikipedia editors from engaging in synthesis of their own by combining sources to say something not said in either one. Using the quote from Watson's book does not make any point other than the one it makes by itself: Therefore it is not synthesis. (And I did not write that the source supports part of the point of the article. I was saying that the article has many supports, of which this is one.)


 * On the other hand, it has been clear to me since the deletion debate that the title of the article is far too restricting and subject to misinterpretation to fairly represent the concept actually being discussed: Mass killing by communists. I proposed changing the name then, and I still support it. I won't be making any more edits to the article until that issue is resolved, although I notice as of this writing that the Watson quote has been removed. AmateurEditor (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So you really don't get my point about Hegelian genocide. Your agreement that it would be an absurd category only supports my argument.  If you thought I was serious about creating such a category, you've been missing most of the discussion here.  And go ahead and use google books as I suggested to look up that phrase rather than asking me to interpret it for you -- better to stick with reliable sources, methinks.  The point is, Marxist scholars who discuss that essay argue that Engels is much more Hegelian than Marxian in it.  Which makes sense if you've actually read any Hegel.  You're also missing my point about synthesis (or perhaps you're creating a straw man?).  Obviously I'm not saying that it is synthesis if the claim is in the source (be it Watson, Engels, or Hegel).  But it IS synth when you combine this quote from Watson with a quote from a newspaper headline inaccurately describing a war crime someone is charged with and argue that they are talking about the same thing.  Anyway, you're right this debate is somewhat academic since we're hopefully changing the name of the article and the Watson quote was removed by someone else for more basic issues of expertise. csloat (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me just add that in regards the Watson quote, my point isn't about whether Watson is right or wrong in his reading of Engels; just that many scholars disagree with him about that interpretation or about the connection of that essay to the overall project of "communism"; if we do include this view we should also include opposing views, and we should not pretend that this is an open and shut case on the relationship between "communism" and "genocide" (or mass killing or whatever). So a separate section discussing this as a disputed question is far better than a quote cited as if it were fact. csloat (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to be done arguing on this point. To end on an up note, I find nothing objectionable about your second paragraph. Hopefully we can make this right after the article is renamed. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)