User talk:Гармонический Мир/Archive/2019

Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. 58.187.77.36 (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Infoshop.org
Hi : I just came across User:Гармонический Мир/Infoshop.org, it looks like content in the History and Features section would be apt to add to Alternative Media Project. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes I agree. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please WP:Drop the stick
You have been told a number of times that Communism is not exactly the same as Marxism=Leninism, and yet you keep adding Marxist-Leninism sidebars and navboxes to articles about "Communist regimes". Not all "Communist regimes" are Marxist-Leninist, which you have also been told. Please stop doing this, or you are in danger of being reported to the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN/I) for disruptive editing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , please explain which "communist" regimes referred to in these articles are not Marxist–Leninist. Otherwise, your actions to revert my edits are POV pushing. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , and I agree with you that Communism is not exactly the same as Marxism–Leninism. That's why these articles should be renamed. They are not about the crimes of communism, but about the crimes of Marxism–Leninism. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, until the renaming happens, your sidebars and navboxes are inappropriate.Also, please strike out "POV pushing" in your comment above, as it's a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Casting aspersions. If you seriously want to make the ridiculous claim that I am pushing sone point of view regarding communism and Marxism-Leninism, you're going to have to provide sufficient evident to support that claim.  Without that evidence, it's a personal attack, and if it's a personal attack, and you don't strike it, I'm going to have to report it to admins, which is not good for either of it -- so please just strike it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you have not answered my question which "communist" regimes referred to in these articles are not Marxist–Leninist.
 * And there is no such rule "until the renaming happens, your sidebars and navboxes are inappropriate". For example, article Anarchism uses at least 10 different navigation templates.
 * And the unfounded accusation of disruptive editing by me is not a personal attack?
 * Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a personal attack, because I have the evidence of all your edits, which you've continue to do despite being warned about being incorrect. You've even gone so far as to remove "communit" navboxes from articles about "communst regimes".   Now, until you strike your personal attack, I'm afraid we have nothing more to talk about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , you don't explain your reversions - don't answer clarifying questions regarding them. And all my edits have a clear justification. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Strike your personal attack, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your descriptions of and  reversions are more like a personal attack. --Гармонический Мир (talk) 06:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If it will help to resolve a situation, let me interfere and give you some examples: North Korea is not Marxist-Leninist and even not Marxist. This is a Neo-Confucian estate society in a very thin Marxist wrap. They weeded out all mentions of Marxism and even Communism form all their official documents, and there is no indication they adhere to the Marxist doctrine in practice. Thus, they allow private property, although in a Eastern manner. Kampuchea, which was an aggressive anti-urbanist and anti-proletarian regime, had never been Marxist-Leninist, and the USSR was one of the major critics of this regime (I recall, the US supported Pol Pot's representation in UNO, whereas USSR opposed). In general, "Communist" is used more widely in the West as a name of almost any revolutionary non-religious movement in the second half of XX century, so it is a rather vague term.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , if these regimes moved away from Marxism–Leninism (of which there are sources claiming that this is not communism), they moved away from communism even further. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, it seems you believe Communism is come well defined concept, which is not the case. Thus, in reality, none of "Communist" regimes considered themselves Communist (they just declared their goal is creation of some Communist society). The word "Communist" is mostly an umbrella term used by Western authors to describe revolutionary regimes, or the regimes who were Soviet allies or satellites. If you try to make this term more precise, you immediately face serious logical problems.
 * And, yes, it may be quite correct to call Kampuchean regime Communist, and even more Communist than USSR, for they created a weird version of some extreme antiurbanist primitive communist society, whereas in USSR there was some moderate socialist society, which was much closer to what we currently have in Sweden that to what Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia.
 * Your attempt to apply Maxrist-Leninist terminology to much broader spectrum of revolutionary regimes it is applicable to creates obvious difficulties that are clear to everybody who is familiar with the subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , using the term "communism" in relation to these regimes has even more difficulties than using the term "Marxism–Leninism" (Joseph Stalin's concept). What do these regimes have to do with the original communism of Wilhelm Weitling, Karl Marx and Peter Kropotkin? Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I myself think that using the term "Communist" to describe these regimes creates problems, but, unfortunately, that is what majority of Western reliable sources (especially, non-academic) do.
 * Marx wrote almost nothing about communism (except the Manifesto, where he gave just a poetic description of the society that will be created after the fall of capitalism). Kropotkin was more anarchist than communist (although, taking into account what Lenin wrote in his "State and Revolution", the ultimate goal of communists and anarchists was the same: dissolution of the state).
 * Anyway, if we speak about Marxism-Leninism as Stalin's doctrine, we must keep in mind that that "Marxism-Leninism" is, like a guinea pig, which is neither a pig nor from Guinea, neither Marxism nor Leninism. In that sense, it would be less misleading to speak about Stalinism instead of Marxism-Leninism. That resolves many problems, because Mao or Kim were definitely Stalinists (at least, at the begining of their carrier). --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , for example, Khmer Rouge regime is called Maoist. And Maoism is a form of Marxism–Leninism. I agree that it's like guinea pig, but it's established term which is used in the literature. (Sorry for my bad English.) Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That Maoism is a form of Marxism-Leninism is hardly a universally accepted idea. In reality, all "marxist" regimes in Asia have more common features with their non-communist predecessors than with European Marxism. That KR has nothing in common with Soviet communists is well known, and I can provide a reference if you want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , many Maoist parties are called "Marxist–Leninist" (see International Conference of Marxist–Leninist Parties and Organizations). Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about their self-name, let me remind you that NK or Kampuchea described themselves as "Democratic Republic", which is hardly a reason to consider this regime democratic. All Eastern European Communist regimes described themselves as "People's Democratic Countries" (a.k.a. Страны Народной Демократии): is it a reason to call them "Democratic"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the same logic can be applied to most of "Communist" parties: the fact that their self-name is "Communist" does not mean that they are really communist. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. The word "Communist" has several different meanings, one of them (in the West) is a secular antithesis to liberal democracy: no private property, no private life, no free election, no free speech etc. That is what the term "Communist" is frequently used for. That is not what I personally see under "Communism", but, unfortunately, that is how the term is used. Another meaning is "a person, or a political movement whose goal is to build a Communist society in future". Taking into account that there is no universally accepted concept of a Communist society, everybody is free to define it as they wish (within certain limits), so people with totally different views may be considered Communists. Thus, it sounds weird to me that modern Russian Communists call them Communists (and are described as such in the West), however, since Stalinism is considered (both in the west, and by Russian "Communists") as a version of Communism, they, unfortunately, have a right to do so.
 * I personally find totally incorrect to apply the term "Communist" to Stalinism, for the latter was just a resurrection of an old Russian empire wrapped in Marxism. And, for the same reason, I totally disagree with the idea that Stalinism (KR, NK, Vietnamm etc regimes) were versions of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, the core idea of both Marx and Lenin was proletarian internationalism, whereas Stalin was cautiously but persistently weeding this idea out of his Stalinist concept. Ho was primarily a nationalist, he became an adherent of the Marxist doctrine because he needed an alliance with theh USSR to fight against France and later USA. Extreme nationalism is a core of both NK and KR ideology. Just this factor alone is sufficient to discriminate it from Marxism and Leninism. Of course, we can continue calling these regimes Marxist-Leninist because they characterise themselves as such (btw NK does not since late 60s). However, then let's call Nazi party "social-democratic", because its full name is NSDAP.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , "Marxist–Leninist" is the name of Stalinist and Maoist parties and regimes (Trotskyists and Bordigists, for example, do not use this name). If we use this term in this meaning, we should have no problems replacing "communism" with "Marxism–Leninism", where appropriate. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no parties use this name. Some of them may declare adherence to Marxism-Leninism, however, that is not the same. And, again, to use self-names is not a good idea (partially, for the reasons described above). Another argument is that many parties declared adherence to Marxism-Leninism for purely practical reasons: thus, for many African or Asian regimes that was a way to become an ally of the USSR. Sometimes, that was just a declaration.
 * A brief google scholar search gives, for example, this article, where the author argues about the importance of local factors that shaped Communism in China. Taking into account that there was a huge difference between ostensibly "Marxist-Leninist" regimes in different countries, usage of this term (that implies political development oin those states was primarily a result of implementation of this doctrine) are an umbrella term would be imprecize and confusing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , the term "communism" in this case would be all the more imprecize and confusing. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no logic in your words. Communism is a broad term (maybe, too broad), and that is more suitable to describe very diverse regimes that are called in the West "Communist". In contrast, "Marxism-leninism" is much more concrete (NK is not Marxist-Leninist neither according to its self-identification nor according to many Western sources, KR were not Marxist-Leninist even according to Soviet propaganda, and it seems they didn't describe themselves as Leninist). I would go further: even "Communist" is not adequate in many cases: thus, it is hard to believe the country that is now a core of capitalist economy is still called "Communist", however, the term "Marxist-Leninist" is even less applicable to modern China or Vietnam. The best way would be to avoid generalizations when possible: thus, serious historians prefer to describe Stalin's regime as "Stalinist" and Mao's regime as "Maoist", and they do not emphasize the connection of their regimes to the Marxian doctrine. In contrast, political writers and journalists prefer to use "Communist", for purely political reasons. Your attempt to fit everything into some concrete category also brings more politics to the area that requires a much more balanced approaches and, therefore misleads a reader, because there were much more differences between those regimes than commonalities.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , we have already said that "Marxism–Leninism" is the doctrine of Stalin, not Marx.
 * Communism is a more general concept than "Marxism–Leninism", and the differences between the variants of communism are much greater than between the variants of "Marxism–Leninism".
 * Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You say. In reality, most sources do not say so. For example, Britannica makes a clear difference between Stalinism and Leninism (and does not discuss Marxism-Leninism as a separate concept at all). According to Britannica, Maoism is a Chinese version of Marxism, not Marxism-Leninism. Thus, Maiost notion of a permanent revolution makes Maoism closer to Trotskism than Leninism. In addition, Stalin was not a theorist at all, and he never proposed any concrete doctrine (except a very dubious idea about a permanent increase of the class struggle).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was not completely correct. Britannica says:
 * "It is Joseph Stalin who codified the body of ideas that, under the name of Marxism-Leninism, constituted the official doctrine of the Soviet and eastern European communist parties. "
 * However, the same article sees Maoism as a variant of Marxism, not Marxism-Leninism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Mao Zedong and Maoists inherited Stalin's doctrine of "Marxism–Leninism". Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What you are presenting is just your speculations, whereas I am saying what reliable sources say. Anyway, "Marxism-Leninism" is a terminology proposed by Stalin, why do we need to stick with it? And, importantly, there was a huge gap between theoretical doctrines and a real political practice: thus, the Great Purge or a struggle against cosmopolitism did not follow from the Marxist-Leninist doctrine (actually, it directly contradicted to it), but it was a part of Stalinist politic. If you read whet serious historians write about USSR, you may notice they do not consider theoretical doctrines as a serious factor that define major strategical decision of Stalin or his team. In addition to logical mistakes I already described, it seems you give an undue attention to the role of ideological doctrines in a political practice of "communist" regimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The regimes that committed various crimes are called "communist" not by me. And communism is also an ideological doctrine. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Peter Kropotkin was one of the main theorists of anarchist communism. And there is, for example, libertarian Marxism, which also has nothing to do with "Marxism–Leninism". That is, the term "communism" is too wide and vague to use it everywhere. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If some term is vague, it can be used everywhere. And that is exactly what we have: the word "communist" is applied to a very broad spectrum of regimes and political movements due to the fact that it is vague. That is a fact (although I myself disagree with that usage of this term). In contrast, "Leninism" is too narrow, and, frankly speaking, I am not sure if it is applicable even to China. "Leninism" specifically implies urban and industrial communism with a stress on industrial working class, and Maoism, and especially its extreme example, KR regime, which was aggressively anti-urbanist, is a direct negation of Leninism. In general, the actual nature of various "communist" regimes was so country specific that only deliberately vague terms are applicable in that case. In contrast, more narrow terms, such as "Marxism-Leninism", are not.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When there are more accurate terms, it makes no sense to use vague terms. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ...if this term is really more accurate, which is not the case (as I already explained). In reality, what you propose creates just a visibility of accuracy --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Issue of money" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Issue of money. Since you had some involvement with the Issue of money redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 19:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are doing wrong by giving warning to me, and not to those who make non-consensus changes to the articles. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)