Talk:Collectivism (disambiguation)/Archive 2

Sam replies, as requested

1.

Very few people use the term 'collectivism' to identify themselves" and other similar comments. This is a factual truth

Prove it. Cite it. Verify it. Just the facts, ma'am. Sam [Spade] 18:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look at what you're saying! How can I cite a non-citation? If so-called collectivists don't use the term "collectivism", then there's nothing to cite, precisely because they don't use the term! If I said that George Bush never claimed to be a little green alien in disguise, would you ask me to produce a quote by George Bush saying "I am not a little green alien in disguise"? Of course not; the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are trying to make a claim "Very few people use the term 'collectivism' to identify themselves". The claim is of course false. I removed it and asked for some evidence. End of story. Sam [Spade] 14:21, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let me make my point another way: What kind of evidence are you looking for? How can I quote a non-statement? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All you need to do is cite an expert on the subject making a statement regarding this particular. Then we can clarify that this is his, or a number of peoples, opinion, and the reader can make up their mind what they believe on their own, w/o us providing a slant. Sam [Spade] 15:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is also my understanding that (in academia) few people title 'themsleves' or their comments (as opposed to 'others') as 'collectivists' because the term is simply far too broad and loaded, and thus open to too many attacks. El_C

2.

you're implying that collectivists do not recognize differences between individuals, which is utterly absurd.

No it isn't, but perhaps we can find a NPOV compromise of this section, since the POV's between those for and against collectivists differ. Sam [Spade] 18:50, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've already put in a NPOV compromise: "...differences between groups are considered more significant than differences between individuals within groups." I don't see anything wrong with it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Some political collectivists" clarifies that this is not everybodies position. I added a compromise edit to clarify your position. Sam [Spade] 15:06, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you follow your own policies? Since you're trying to make the claim that some collectivists do not recognize differences between individuals, go ahead and prove it. Cite it. Verify it. Just the facts, ma'am. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you read the article as I last edited it? If thats unnacceptable, lets just delete both statements on this particular. Sam [Spade] 15:36, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that the original phrasing was inherently problematic (I have not looked at the revision, will do so soon). El_C

3.

"Anti-collectivists and others point out how this sort of reasoning has historically led to the repression of individual rights, which were sacrificed for the alleged good of the group." this is POV, yadayada.

Yep, its POV, I clarified it as such. And criticism is not limited to the criticism section, short counters are allowed thruout the body of the article. Sam [Spade] 18:53, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ha ha ha - no, you most certainly did not clarify it as such. They "point out" that it has "historically led" to yada yada - that's POV language. Besides, the claim is self-contradictory: Any group is made up of individuals. You cannot achieve the good of the group without the good of the individuals who make up that group. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course not, the point is collectivism has historically led to the benefit of oligarchs and dictators, not the poor or working class. Sam [Spade] 15:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(a) That is your opinion, not fact; (b) There is no clear definition of "collectivism" - you can argue that collectivism has led to oligarchy if you carefully define "collectivism" so as to include only those systems that led to oligarchy; (c) If you're talking about 20th century "communist states" then I regret to inform you that the poor and working class were actually better off in those states than in the capitalist systems that preceded and succeeded them. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, thats a horrific thing to say. Have you ever spoken to one? I personally know several, and if they could fight their way thru their rage an heartbreak to be able to speak sensibly to you after hearing you say something like that, they'd let you know just how deeply sick and wrong it is for you to say something like that. Sam [Spade] 15:42, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I AM one. Perhaps you didn't know this, but I am Romanian. Not only have I lived through a stalinist regime, I've lived through one of the worst such regimes that ever existed - namely that of Nicolaie Ceausescu. And yes, most of Romania's poor and working class were actually better off under him than they were before 1945 or after 1989. In fact, many of the poor are very nostalgic for the old "communist" days. Of course, you probably wouldn't know any such people, because the poor in Romania obviously don't have the money to travel outside the country. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:59, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually I do know some romanians, altho how poor they are is arguable, because like you, they can afford to go online (altho travel outside of even their near region in romania is cost prohibitive for them , I've asked). I also know a number of Russians, a Slovak, a lithuanian, a couple polish, and a number of moldovans (I chat w foriegners online intentionally to remain worldly, and they like to talk w me to improve their english). You are the only one I have met who isn't violently anti-communist. Sam [Spade] 16:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can go on a diatribe on Ceausescu for a while, but I probably shouldn't. As for the original item, in fairness, anti-collectivists (if we are to employ the term as such, at least) do argue this. That their critics disagree and/or wish to qualify that is another issue which doul also be brought up. So, I agree with Sam's second response. The responses which follow go beyond the scope of the original item and need to be treated speratately (I'll see if I can address these later). El_C]

4.

You keep removing "and presumably used for the benefit of all"

OK, so long as we make it clear it never works out this way. Sam [Spade] 19:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh, in your opinion, of course. I would say the facts prove you wrong. But let's not go off on a tangent; we have reached agreement on this point, yes? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that mak[ing] it clear it never works out this way would be POV, is far too broad of a statement, and, is in fact, a polemic. El_C

I agree that was a POV statement, but I wasn't planing on putting it in the article. What I ment by "make it clear" was to describe what really happens neutrally. If that is donw, I am confident the reader can make the easy judgement about the historical successes of collectivism (well, the 19th century western failures really, I'm sure it worked out fine for various tribes and so forth). Sam [Spade] 14:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5.

The list ... We'll get back to this once we settle everything else.

OK, then don't remove it until then. Sam [Spade] 19:04, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about you don't add it until then? Or, if this drags on, how about we leave it up only half of the time? (like, say, adding it in the evening and removing it in the morning - silly, I know, but if this is the only way...) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thats not how the wiki works, thats called a Revert war. Rather we must work toward compromise and concensus. 15:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)  ::::Fine. We'll get back to this once we settle everything else. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:25, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let us all refrain from potentially contencious edits. This article is hugely problematic on many fronts (more on that bellow, and to come). El_C

Page owner

You don't own this page Mihnea, and you POV edits will be reverted. I suggest you discuss it here in talk, rather than wasting your time defying concensus. Sam [Spade] 18:28, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. What consensus? We never reached any. 2. What is POV about my edits? You're trying to add content to the effect that "collectivism is bad". I am removing that content. Who is defying Wikipedia policy here? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I ment the concensus of me and the other editors, not of me and you. And as far as your POV, sometimes its hard to judge from within, like how an artist is the worst judge of their own work, etc... In any case, if you favor concensus, lets work together for a soloution. I've been incorperating as many of your edits as I can, if you have not noticed. Sam [Spade] 00:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me, but... what other editors? We're the only two people in this dispute! As for consensus, if you have not noticed, I have also been incorporating all the NPOV information from your edits into my own version. But I cannot understand how you can fight for the inclusion of sentences like "collectivism nearly always leads to economic stagnation" and "another kind of monopoly more oppressive than the capitalist system it replaces", while still claiming with a straight face that you're not trying to push your own POV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:18, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you think my POV is? As far as I know, I am a collectivist. See User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases. I think everyone should have free medical care and education. Isn't that collectivism? Sam [Spade] 14:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you're trying to push a POV that goes against your own, that doesn't make it any better - although it does make the situation very, very strange. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The strange thing (in your eyes) is that I am trying to push neutrality, which is my POV. Collectivism has an ugly past, filled w failures, which we must not ignore. Stalin was not cool, nor was pol pot. We must learn from our past to understand our present and improve our future. Sam [Spade] 15:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OF COURSE that Stalin and Pol Pot were evil bastards. What I object to is your attempt to put other people and other ideas in the same category with Stalin and Pol Pot, for the sole purpose of making them look bad by association with mass murderers.

Oh, and by the way, how is it "collectivism" when one man (such as Stalin) controls everything in a country? What role did "the collective" play in Stalinist Russia? NONE. "The collective" was powerless. Stalin had all the power. So how exactly can you call that system "collectivism"? Autocracy cannot be collectivism. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you heard of doublespeak, mislabeling, false adverstising, the big lie etc? Sam [Spade] 15:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you're trying to say that the autocratic Stalin used doublespeak to portray himself as the collectivist leader of a country run by the people, then you are most certainly correct. But an autocrat who lies in order to make himself look collectivist is not a collectivist - he's still an autocrat. Just like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not actually democratic, no matter what Kim says. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:07, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course, but when a term is used falsely, it cheapens the term. Like when some half-wit calls me an anti-semite because I criticize Israel, or take a neutral stance on German history, they cheapen the term. When terms are consistently used improperly in this manner, the meaning changes. Meanings of words are not precise, they ebb and flow with the popular usage. Collectivism has absorbed alot of ugliness from those who have misused the concept. Our duty is to explain the full extent of the concept, not beautify it. Sam [Spade] 16:18, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)