Talk:Joseph Stalin

Talk:Joseph Stalin/ archive1 Talk:Joseph Stalin/ archive2 Talk:Joseph Stalin/archive3

Opening

New stuff was added to the opening. "Totalitarian" is a made-up propaganda term developed in think tanks and the like. It's just a POV mud-throwing term like terrorist. The US blowing the hell out of Fallujah or mining Nicaragua's harbor isn't terrorist, but some Iraqi shooting an American rampaging through his home is a terrorist. Secondly all opposition was not removed. There was Zionist opposition which was thought not to have been dealt with at his death, the so-called anti-Party group fought with what became Khrushchev's government which would not have happened if everyone was on the same page. Anyone cognizant of the last years of Stalin's life and the years after his death will know all opoosition was not removed. Anarchist opposition was dealt with in Lenin's time, Stalin took care of Trotskyist and then Right Opposition opposition, but there was still opposition, exemplified by Khrushchev really, who (stupidly) sought peace with the capitalist countries. Finally there is nothing linking Stalin's rule to millions of deaths. We have discussed this point quite often. Unreconstructed Stalinist 20:41, 23 Nov 2004

Wow I'm really impressed with your "non-Americentric" (ie virulently anti-American) views. Go figure.

Fallujah is not terrorism, it is a part of war and the occupation -- we are not deliberately targeting civilians. The Nicaraguan harbor is more sketchy but again, when we're talking terrorism we're usually talking more deliberately targeting innocent civilians, not economic sabotage. I would agree with you on the Iraqi thing if the resistance didn't consist of radical Islamist thugs whose tactics include pretending to surrender and then blowing themselves up, or targeting Iraqi civilians not allied with them (the definition of terrorism.) And is a well-accepted historical fact (except, perhaps, from hagiographic Soviet "history" of The Man of Steel from within Russia) that Stalin presided over an extensively totalitarian state apparatus and that opponents faced potential imprisonment without trial, deportation to the gulag, or death. It's also well known that how he successfully established the Soviet heavy industrial economy involved ludicrously high quotas (and, consequentially, forced difficult labor) and class elimination of the "exploiters," ie the kulaks. Now it's fine if you think the fact that the establishment of the Soviet Union as a formidable economic and military power outweighs all this, but these facts are well-established. Trey Stone 05:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yaa, it's good to live in the USA where people never have to face "ludicrously high quotas (and, consequentially, forced difficult labor)". Right. The US imprisons more of its populace than any country except for Rwanda incidentally. "Virulently anti-American", sure - the whole world is "virulently anti-American" along with half of Americans, fine.

Elimination of kulaks is not elimination of *all* opposition. It would be like Republicans eliminating trial lawyers and it being said they eliminated all of their opposition. And totalitarianism is a nonsense POV propaganda term that like terrorist would get the boot from any article, as it will in this one. Chomskian High, Class of 2007 06:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually it's not fine but if you want to follow that line of braindead totalitarian leftism then OK. BTW, you should go tell people who grew up in the German Democratic Republic that "totalitarian" is a propaganda term. Trey Stone 05:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was recently talking with someone who gre up in the GDR who was telling me how the US propaganda system was much more totalitarian than in the GDR. He said the standard prime-time American shows, dramas about upper middle class people and sitcoms show a completely false view of how most Americans live their lives, which is of course correct. At least in the GDR you could vote for all the pre-war parties in the elections - in West Germany people were denied the right to vote for the KPD, so you could vote for any party, as long as it was pro-capitalism. Some democracy. I won't mention how West Germany was primarily run by "rehabilitated" SS, Gestapo and Nazis Making up stuff on the spot 06:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jeah it's pretty obvious you're a liar and a vandal so I won't waste anymore time on this. Trey Stone 08:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whether he is a liar and a vandal or not, changing his signature as you have is vandalism. Fred Bauder 11:14, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Jeah sorry about that. He's a special case. Trey Stone 01:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would call myself a Marxist, but I reject Stalin. If we take the official definition of 'totalitarian' - Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed, then Stalin was a Totalitarian. ALL democracy in the Soviet Union had vanished by 1928. The original poster makes some valid comments, but his obvious pro-Stalin views do not hold much weight. By the way, Nicaragua took the USA to international court in the 1980s. The court ordered the United States to terminate the 'unlawful use of force', which is international terrorism

Just because an international court decides an act is terrorism does not make it terrorism (although I agree that the economic sabotage essentially can be classified that way, but it's obviously not the same gruesome type as practiced by bin Laden and his cronies.) Trey Stone 08:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Just because an international court decides an act is terrorism does not make it terrorism". So you now defy international law. What a great century to look forward to if Americans don't agree with international law. Obviously 9-11 was dreadful, but the US has killed more civilians in other countries...and supported regimes which massacred thousands.

I would point out that I would probably not always agree with an international court's decisions. A good example of this is a resolution by the UN (not the same binding deal as an international court, but using for comparison) that declared Zionism to be a form of racism, which I do not agree with. Trey Stone 11:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The concept of Zionism is a state for Jews. This is therefore racist, because it is nationalistic, and aims at dispossesing Arabs of their land (in Palestine). Hitler wanted a nation for only Aryans. This is racist. Theodore Herzl wanted a state for Jews only. Surely this is racist? I am talking about the *theory* of Zionism, not Israel.

Adding totalitarian to this article is something done recently, which I immediately reverted. It was put it the second sentence so that the first thing people would see is a negative POV comment on the USSR. This article survived for years without the recent POV addition, it can continue to survive. How come The second sentence of George W. Bush's article doesn't call him an imperialist? For the same reason it doesn't belong here. User:Usama bin Lopez al-Berkeley 00:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess a bunch of foreigners should be forced to move to Ireland to displace it's predominantly white, Christian population. After all, it is a mostly Caucasian country with laws no doubt influenced by Catholicism -- as such it is racist and nationalistic. And I cannot for the life of me comprehend why the Jewish people would desire a home state after 1945. What the hell were they thinking?

Your braindead analogy to Dubya doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Imperialism is only a fact if we are taking permanent control of countries in order to benefit the home country, which Dubya hasn't done. Otherwise, it's povulation pure and simple. In contrast, no one disputes the extent of Stalin's political control through Soviet society. His own successor didn't even try to deny it, so please. Trey Stone 01:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits by 82.166.133.142

This guy doesn't look like vandal, see his contribs . I'd refrain from reverting him on sight. In particular, Pismamedov vs. Papismedov, I suspect he can be right. "Pismamedov" version seems to converge to a single source, of Russian origin. A Russian can easily "hear" "...Mamedov", a common muslim name.

Dear 82.166.133.142,

Please get yourself a name, so that one can talk to you, and please provide your sources. Mikkalai 18:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm slowing down on the reverts; the main reason I did it in the first place was that he was breaking links right and left by changing spellings. For all I know he's correct in the spelling. --jpgordon{gab} 19:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a reason people can edit pages without an account, so please respect the people that do so. I'm seeing it more and more often that people just revert changes made by ip users without even looking at them or checking which version is the more valid. Also, you can make a talk page for users with only an ip so you cán talk with them/ --82.74.253.46 01:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To talk at a talk page of an anon IP is like to go out into the forest and shout. If a guy doesn't bother to get a name, he is mostly unlikely to look at the IP talk page.

If a person makes regular contributions, I see no reason not to spend 45 seconds to regester oneself. You are not asked to provide your credit card or SSN here. Mikkalai 03:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

oh really? in comments with a standard signature is always a link to the talk page plus history->ip->user talk also gets you there. Plus if you think it's wrong that people can edit pages without registering go win some wikipedia elections and then forbid it, but as long as it's policy to let everyone edit please respect that. --82.74.253.46 11:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are problems with IP adresses. Some addresses are shared by multiple contributors, sometimes by thousands of people. In such cases it's very difficult to separate honest edits from vandalism. Human memory is not very good at remembering IP adresses. IP addresses may change, or users may change them. No one is stopping you from editing as an unregistered user. But such edits are usually treated differently because the number of vandals or clueless people among unregistered contributors is higher than among registered. You are correct, you can contribute without registering. But your opponent is also correct when he says talking to an IP is usually a waste of time. You can continue without registration, but don't be surprized when you get more reverts than a registered contributor. --Gene s 11:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

opening paragraph

Looking over the opening paragraph compared to what was there a few weeks ago I see this sentence:

"Meanwhile, Stalin consolidated his personal power and eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through a combination of beneficence, tactical retreats, and ruthless purges (See Gulag) that resulted in millions of deaths."

I see many problems with this.

• I've gone over a million times everything regarding the idea of "Stalin consolidating his personal power". If everything Stalin did was to benefit himself personally, he never would have been able to do anything. Obviously the Politburo, the Central Committee, the Party, and the USSR went along with him. This has been discussed to death. And others have agreed.

Obviously you don't know how it was. Initially the Politburo was not so tame. There were bloody struggles. Stalin turned out to be better in this. Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• ruthless is POV.

Yep. Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• what the hell is "(See Gulag)"? Don't people just follow normal wiki links in a normal article? This seems like trying to hit someone over the head with POV and direct them somewhere.

Nitpicking. Easily fixable.Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• and finally there is the tendency to mush this all together. Personal power consolidation, eliminating opposition, tactical retreats which resulted in deaths. It's all squeezed together as if it is all related and all one thing - Stalin's quest for personal political power resulted in millions of deaths. This tendency to try to throw everything together into one sentence with a handful of mud-slinging accusations is unfortunately all too typical of these articles.

Right-o. There were deaths, but for the political idea, rather than personal power. Due to democratic centralism Stalin didn't need to kill many to have all power to himself. Mikkalai 03:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the fact that his regime is widely regarded as a quintessential example of totalitarianism at the time, along with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, is worthy of mention. "Gulag" is appropriate because this is really where it originated. Trey Stone 04:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I accept that the CPSU went along, but the fact was you had a huge personality cult centered around this one man and as the head of state he was responsible for his government's actions. Trey Stone 10:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't forget that the article is about Stalin, not about Soviet Union. It is so tempting, it is so easy to attribute everything to a single person. Many think that Bukharin, Rykov or Trotsky would produce the same, if not worse regimes. Their egos were just as big, only Stalin was more cunning. Mikkalai 07:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stalin is widely regarded as an embodiment of totalitarianism at the time along with the other two regimes I mentioned. To say it only belongs in Soviet history is like saying Franco's complete authoritarianism only belongs in Spanish history. Trotsky and the others aren't relevant. Trey Stone 10:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have removed this relatively new sentence for the above reasons. One would probably be better off making the same point in the manner it was several weeks ago. Ruy Lopez 01:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You make some valid points, but why not try to rewrite the sentence in a way that might be acceptable to everyone? Some people won't stand for the outright removal of that sentence and they're just going to revert it, as you know. So the best way to actually get somewhere is to write compromise versions until finally nobody has any more objections to raise. Everyking 02:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Beneficence

Ford removed the following piece

through a combination of beneficence, tactical retreats

claiming that we don't know the meaning of the word. Even if it is so, this was not the reason of clipping the phrase. The intended sense is pretty clear, and if you are smart in English, please provide another synonym. The meaning was that when Stalin wanted, he could be extremely generous, patronizing and lovable. So, what is the word? Mikkalai 02:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Ah, I thought you were referring to the beneficence of his social welfare programs; if you're looking for a word to describe his personality, "avuncular charm" works pretty well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Aw... thanks. It was not me. I am protecting this phrase for the sole reason that it portrays Stalin in a way different from an operetta villain and cutthroat. And by the way, a good idea would be to ask the author what exactly he meant instead of cut and shred. The context is in-Party struggle. Stalin was skilled manipulator of people. And he was pretty smart, too. I happened to read a discussion on the issue of Russian chauvinism vs. national minority chauvinism. In polemics, he spoke much more reasonably than most of other congress participants. (Unless this impression was mastered by stenographers and censors.) Mikkalai 04:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word ‘beneficence’ has no business in this opening. If ‘totalitarian’ is too biased to use, ‘beneficence’ is off the charts. It is ridiculous to credit Stalin with good will, which is what the word implies. It is also, to use everyone’s favorite term, point-of-view. There may have been patronage, and on some level the socialist ideal may have been practiced in a limited way hardly worth mentioning, and the régime certainly had some support; but the elimination of opposition in particular did not happen because the régime was charitable to the population. The régime killed the opposition, and fed the population a steady diet of false propaganda about the state of the country, and their own lives. Stalin had genuine support, but less for the things he did than for the things he was credited with by his own propaganda machine.

Trey Stone’s alteration of Ruy Lopez’s signature is, in my opinion, a ban-worthy offense; but he is right about the content of this page. The encyclopedia is not required to present falsehoods because a small number believe them, or to deny truths because a small number do not. ‘Totalitarianism’ can be defined, and in fact, it is defined largely by what Stalin himself did. So of course he was a totalitarian. ‘Beneficence’ can be defined, and it is not what Stalin did or encouraged at all. We do not need a synonym. It should be remembered that the bulk of the millions whose deaths Stalin caused were not executed. They died of preventable famine caused by his policies, which were not generous or charitable or socialist. His policies were focused on aggrandizing himself by dragging the Russian empire into the industrial age, to the great neglect of the agricultural base. And the program of deception for internal and external consumption aggravated the famine and increased the deaths, because no one was allowed to tell the truth about the state of the economy. So even the argument that something like social welfare earned Stalin popular support totally defies the facts. Feeding the people was nearly the last thing Stalin was concerned with. And the people who loved him did not love him because he made their lives so good, but because propaganda told them their lives would be even worse without him. Not true, of course, and those who saw through this hated him; but they feared him more, and that was because of the active things he did to destroy the opposition. The most balanced of histories recognize all of these facts. This encyclopedia will look foolish if it creates some self-congratulatory but self-deluded “NPOV” by perpetuating the lies that were exposed in Stalin’s own time, by his own mistreated subjects.

And the idea that we need to emphasize the collective nature of the leadership is uninformed as well. Obviously Stalin needed others to carry out his commands; but the régime was also a textbook example of autocracy. Stalin governed alone even early in his reign, and as his rule progressed, his own personal power increased, so that his every whim was heeded. That is the product of fear in totalitarianism; to defy Stalin was viewed as lethal (as indeed it was), and few would risk it. United, his opponents might have stopped him, but they did not unite because he so effectively nurtured a climate of doubt and suspicion. Of course he had help. But he got his way so effectively and completely that there is no need for us to speak of the Politburo or his other associates. Those colleagues who did not do as he said were all, ultimately, eliminated. Simple fact. I support the neutrality policy, but more important than that is accuracy, and these modifications to the opening in recent days have not been accurate.
— Ford 03:49, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

All what you say is correct, but to leave only "ruthless" in the intro is yet another bias. This term is as applicable to Stalin as to tornado. Stalin was no more ruthless than Napoleon (praised univocally); Stalin had more tools at hand. After some thought, I'd leave only a pure fact: elimination of opposition, cutting out the whole "through..." part. At the same time, gulag, personality cult and purges are notable t be in intro, only without any attempts to make logical connections, which are doomed to be incomplete in a terse text of the intro. Mikkalai 04:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

‘Purge’ does not mean “kill”; it means “remove”. ‘Ruthless’ does not mean “cruel”; it means “dispassionate” or “without mercy” (like a tornado, as it happens; and I, for one, do not praise Napoleon at all). ‘Ruthless purges’ implies that Stalin removed individuals from party and society without particular mercy. At best, the phrase hints at the mass murder, but does not state it directly, nor does it signify that Stalin relished the murders — merely that he was not especially upset about them. If you want to say that “Stalin eliminated political opposition through a combination of skilled manipulation of people and ruthless purges”, I would be fine with it. ‘Skilled manipulation’ is your formula, and it is accurate and neutral.

If you don’t feel confident in your use of English, then I wonder that you have so forcefully defended 172’s edit (it was 172 who added the word ‘beneficence’ twice). 172 either does not know the meaning of ‘beneficence’, or is enthusiastically pro-Stalin, or was trying to be neutral and went far overboard. In any of these cases, I felt justified in changing the language without consulting 172 or anyone else. Leaving that statement in the encyclopedia for more than a minute risks discrediting it. I know the English language fairly well; and the best interpretation of 172’s formula is that Stalin was a good-hearted individual who was capable of setting aside his good-heartedness to act dispassionately when necessary. That won’t fly, not remotely.
— Ford 12:31, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

172 is one of those kinds of people who'll say, "Well I don't support the fact that X -insert Marxist-leaning dictator here- butchered a bunch of people, but..." and then does the exact opposite on any undemocratic regime friendly to the U.S., shrouding everything in "historical perspective" when it's really just "making wikipedia into 172-defined history." For example, with Rios Montt's brutally indiscriminate tactics against Guatemalan campesinos in guerrilla areas, we get the full picture of torture, assassination, and murder, as we should. With Saddam Hussein, who employed similarly sick tactics for different reasons, we get "internal coup prevention" and "stabilization" (all well and good) without a single mention of the sort of techniques used by his police. 172 seems to think that if he's somewhat receptive to someone's ideology their misdeeds must be minimized or wholly omitted under the guise of "relevance" and "NPOV". This is Trey 08:17, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I am one of the users adding the reference to the millions of lives lost in Stalin's consolidation of power in the 1930s. I can provide a plethora of other examples. I have added to the Saddam article: "Domestic repression inside Iraq grew worse, and Saddam's sons, Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein, became increasingly powerful and carried out a private reign of terror." Also: "Shortly afterwards, he convened an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on July 22, 1979. During the assembly, which he ordered videotaped, Saddam claimed to have found spies and conspirators within the Ba'ath Party and read out the names of members who he thought could oppose him. These members were labeled 'disloyal' and were removed from the room one by one to face a firing squad." I have gotten into conflicts on the Saddam article with users ostensibly opposed to the Bush administration's war polices over the addition of content concerning casualties caused by the UN and U.S. sanctions that I felt was off topic; see the archives of the talk page. By resorting to ad hominems, you are making it clear that the only tactic that you have at your disposal to win this debate is mudslinging, as opposed to a coherent set of arguments backed up by real evidence. 172 17:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK so you did have a few things in there that didn't make excuses for why Saddam ruled as a ruthless dictator. I guess I should give you a tad more credit.

I am not going to respond to the above charges. However, I will note that I did not write that particular intro. Rather, I was restoring one that was left standing for quite a long time because it was generally more acceptable than the POV commentary left in its place. In its context the word 'beneficence' refers to his bestowing beneficence on his political supporters through, e.g., promotions or the provision of social services in his consolidation of power. (Note that the sentence pertains to his consolidation of power in the 1930s.) However, I will change the wording given the feedback above suggesting that it is confusing to some readers. 172 21:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It frustrates me that a user like Trey Stone is discrediting the attempt to make this opening even a reasonable representation of what happened in Stalin’s life. Ruy Lopez goes the other way, insisting that one of the most autocratic rulers in recent history be enveloped (and excused) in a collective leadership, and offering hollow defenses for what took place. Are we to believe — are our readers to believe — that Stalin anticipated that he would face the Nazi invasion in the 1920s, and did nothing from then until the war but develop Russia’s defenses? Two questions for Ruy: Would Russia not have been far better defended if Stalin had not purged so many capable persons in government, army, and society? Serious historians seem to believe so. And did the invasion by Germany not take Stalin largely by surprise, ten or fifteen years after he had supposedly begun preparations for it? Again, serious historians seem to believe so. He thought he had coopted Hitler like he had coopted so many in Russia itself.

It should be remembered that the elimination of opposition was an elimination of opposition to Stalin. The Politburo and the bureaucracy took on the shapes they did after Stalin’s opponents were taken out. Collective leadership characterizes matters before the purges began. You can call Beria, Molotov, Kalinin, Yagoda, et cetera, whatever you like, but let us not pretend that they were colleagues of Stalin. They rose because they did what he told them to do, and at the expense of those like Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, and Kamenev who did not. The last three may have been coopted for a time; but they fell because they ultimately opposed Stalin, and their opposition to Stalin’s loyal subordinates was incidental.

I don’t know why, if the “beneficence...” formula is not the product of anyone in the current dispute, no one will accept my compromise: “skillful manipulation, patronage, and ruthless purges”. ‘Patronage’ is a much more common word than ‘clientage’ — and it has the added advantage of actually meaning what you are all trying to convey. And I do not know why 172 in particular is so wedded to this ‘tactical retreats’ phrase.
— Ford (continues below)

I did not add the phrase tactical retreats originally, but I support keeping it in its place in the intro. This phase refers to political shifts such as his outmaneuvering the 'left' and 'right' factions of the Politburo in the late 1920s, the end of the Popular Front with the signing of the Non-Aggression Pact, and the reopening of the churches and the co-opting of Russian nationalism during the war. This is a reference to the brutal swiftness and realism with which Stalin responded to external and internal political change. 172 18:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does that really add much to our discussion of what Stalin did? It was Mikkalai who provided ‘skillful manipulation’ (indirectly), and while I think it covers both patronage and what few tactical retreats Stalin may have made, I am willing to see patronage in there as well.

172, if that was you, please explain your problem with the mention of totalitarianism. Calling Stalin totalitarian may be (may be) point-of-view, but saying that he is considered by many to be a historical example of a totalitarian ruler is not point-of-view. The encyclopedia uses that device all the time. It is not a judgement, but a description of a judgement. And it is far more important information than the trivial fact about the five-year plans. Out of context, the five-years plans sound unforgivably silly. But it is accurate to mention them, at least. It would be equally accurate to mention the most common characterization of Stalin’s rule. If we don’t convey something so obvious about Stalin, what good are we?
— Ford 19:39, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

While saying that Stalinist Russia is thought to be an example of totalitarianism may not be POV, there is no reason to get into such a methodological debate concerning the nature of the Soviet political system in the introduction of a biographical entry about Stalin. For our purposes in this article, we can bring up things like the terror, Great Purges, and the cult of personality without debating political science methodology. 172 17:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(a) I would prefer that you not interrupt my posts. Others may not care, but I do, and as they are my posts, I hope you will honor this. (b) I did not say that you originated the ‘tactical retreats’ phrase, but that you are “wedded” to it, in other words that you are insistent on its usage. I think it fundamentally alters the idea of eliminating political opposition, and is misleading. For the most part, the political opposition was eliminated because it lost the freedom to oppose (or was outright killed), not because it lost its reason to oppose (that is, that Stalin stopped opposing it). Tactical retreat belongs in another thought. But certainly it would be better than reinserting ‘beneficence’ or ‘clientage’. (c) As for methodology, see my comments further down.
— Ford 21:48, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust 172's assertion that Sovietologists from the '60s on somehow made some breakthrough and discovered that Stalinism wasn't so totalitarian after all. He's made such definitive statements in the past that are completely false. Master Trey 09:57, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And I did slip totalitarian in there in a much more concise fashion, but I do think it should be covered more. There were three (possibly Imperial Japan as well, but I'm not so sure -- though they weren't short of fanatics) governments regarded as quintessential examples of totalitarianism during WWII -- Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Stalinist Russia. The USSR's economic development and establishment as a superpower is not justification for the BS whitewashing that's going on here. EDR 10:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IMO Italy was by no means totalitarian, but the Stalinist Soviet Union could be accurately termed so. Boraczek 10:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" is, as 172 correctly observed, an "ideal type". So are most concepts describing political and social systems, e.g. democracy, bourgeois democracy, socialism, feudalism, etc. One of the advantages of ideal types is that they allow us to classify real objects according to how close they are to particular ideal types. The ideal types of democracy, authoritarianism and totalitarianism make the division of real political systems into democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian systems possible (rather than impossible). It is important to be aware of the difference between the ideal type, which is an abstract concept and by defintion cannot occur in the real world, and real, empirically accessible objects. A real political system cannot exactly correspond to the ideal type of democracy, authoritarianism or totalitarianism. But this is not an obstacle to classify it as democratic, authoritarian or totalitarian.

The term "totalitarianism" is extensively used in political science. And the statement that the Soviet Union under Stalin furnishes a clear example of totalitarian system is widely accepted. Nevertheless, I am inclined to agree that the totalitarian label is of marginal relevance to this article. This article is about Joseph Stalin, not about the political system of the Soviet Union. I don't find it correct to attribute creation of a political system to one person. What I think is worth mentioning is the personality cult rather than the totalitarian character of the political system. Boraczek 09:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to say that I find Ford's comments very astute. As regards Ford's comment It would be equally accurate to mention the most common characterization of Stalin’s rule, I concur, but I think "totalitarianism" is a characterization of the whole political system rather than of Stalin's power. Boraczek 10:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question, Boraczek (and we may still disagree on this point), is where the totalitarianism in Russia came from. During Stalin’s reign, he was certainly the central figure in the political system, and increasingly the only figure of any significance, so if the system was totalitarian while he ruled, then he was responsible for it during that period at least. But was it totalitarian before him? I would say not. Mind you, Lenin, Trotsky, Sverdlov, et cetera were brutal with their opponents, and I am not prepared to canonize them (but neither would I follow the lunacy of the Orthodox church in canonizing Nikolai Romanov in response). But did life under Lenin amount to a total consumption of the individual in society? There was still debate; there was still life outside of the party. If ever there were a tactical retreat, it was the NEP. The signs of totalitarianism (as opposed to mere dictatorship) did not appear until Stalin took over, and the creation of a totalitarian system was certainly completed under Stalin’s direction, at a time when he was removing any opposition (real or imagined) to himself. So if Stalin installed the system, and Stalin’s régime exemplified the system, and the system characterized life in Russia while Stalin ruled, isn’t that an important fact about Stalin?
— Ford 13:19, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I think it has been demonstrated that Wikipedia is unable to handle this material due to point of view editing. I think we should consider deleting it so that we are not presenting false information. Fred Bauder 13:41, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

...Deleting what? The article? The lede? --Golbez 17:30, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

• If Fred Bauder thinks the article should be deleted, he is free to put a {{vfd}} in place. I can guarantee the result of such a vote, however. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think Fred should feel free to do that, assuming that's what he means. I think anybody ought to revert a VfD header if one is added. Everyking 00:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, I think Fred should feel free to do exactly that if he thinks it's in any way productive...the outcome would be totally predictable, but there's no policy to forbid registered users from adding Vfd headers to articles they feel deserve to be discussed there. A Vfd header should never be reverted unless it has been added in an obvious act of vandalism...besides, a couple dozen keep votes are sending a clear message to whoever thinks an article should be deleted -- Ferkelparade π 00:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Considering Uncle Joe has a fucking Communist ideology named after him that has extensive similarities to totalitarianism, I don't see what the hell is so POV about putting that in the intro. If someone can fit it in more smoothly and concisely that's great. If they're going to remove it I'll keep reverting it. You can't have an article about Stalin without mentioning the term that originated in large part because of his system of government. Trey Stone 22:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Totalitarianism" is inherently POV and unacceptable in the intro. It is an "ideal type," and like all ideal types, it does not fully describe Soviet reality. While it was the consensus in U.S. Sovietology in the 1950s and early 1960s, it has fallen out of favor since then, when challenged by a number of Western Russia and Soviet specialists, such as Sheila Fitzpatrick, Stephen Cohen, J. Arch Getty, and Roberta Manning. Since this is just an encyclopedic entry and not an article in an academic journal, this debate does not concern this article and has no place in the intro. 172 23:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Until I see these scholarly breakthrough reports on how full control throughout Soviet society (education, "judiciary", employment, personality cult, media subordination, etc.) does not constitute totalitarianism (Stalinism) I'm keeping it. Given your systematically biased edits on articles like Efraín Ríos Montt and History of the United States (1988-present) I'm not exactly convinced that the classification of Stalinism as totalitarian has "fallen out of favor" since the '60s (I sure missed it if it did) Trey Stone 02:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There have been extensive studies into the subject that have proven that the alleged totalitarianism was a result of the collectivization period, when general instability and party divisions were rampant. To think that some kind of Western-style democracy was plausible at that point in time is absolutely absurd given the historical situation and antagonisms between landless peasants and the upper-class elite. Your edits show absolutely no knowledge of Soviet history and come from an entirely Western point of view. The intro is for historical data, not value judgments on Stalin's excesses. I am not 172 03:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

These comments were not made by me but rather a Trey Stone sockpuppet. [1] Impersonating users, sockpuppets, personal attacks, etc. all warrant a block. This has clearly crossed the line into vandalism with no ambiguity left and I have acted accordingly. Combined with your creation of the account User:Raghead-in-Chief, you should be hard-banned along with User:JoeM. ("Raghead" is a racist epithet directed at South Asian or Middle Eastern persons. Wikipedia has a policy against offensive usernames.)172 15:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Haha, I love how they gotta specify South Asian. ??? 10:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

full control throughout society - education, "judiciary", employment, personality cult, media subordination...yaa, you have a point there about the United States. Oh...you were talking about the USSR. --yeah I was, you fucking wiseass. So Goddamn Creative 05:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Taking a true criticism of the Soviet Union and turning it into a fake criticism of the United States! Fucking genius. J. Parker Stone 08:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whaddid I tell ya. 172 once again proves that he is a pseudo-intellectual Marxist-sympathizing hack. Big-F'N-newsflash. Mr. Stone 03:11, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious what you did Mr. Trey Cool. Good goin. You're gonna get banned for it. Mikkalai 03:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm Dick Nixon and I approve this message. Richard F. Nixon 03:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting the page one more time without responding to anyone on talk will get you blocked and this page protected. 172 15:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) After seeing the use of sockpuppets above, I have already had to block this vandal. 172 16:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You shouldn't have crossed that detailed explanation (of the historical complexities) out 271. It was so you. El Trey 08:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And always remember that racist obscenities are better than encyclopediac obscenities, such as Stalinophilia. J. Parker Stone

Will all of you please shut the fuck up? Thanks.

Trey Stone:

Stop it with your nonsense-spewing sockpuppets. Keep up with this, and your IP address will be blocked and you will not allowed to edit with any username. 172 16:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whatever you say pro. Shreem Fried Rice 02:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

totalitarinism, etc.

Monkey business aside, we do seem to be unable to present accurate information in this article, see this edit by 172 [2]. With Stalin's regime, together with Hitler's, the premier examples of totalitarianism, a method of goverance which dominated the 20th century, we are unable to maintain a link to the word totalitarianism in the article, due to the activities of a small number of editors who represent no substantial organized political group or academic tradition other than revisionist history. Fred Bauder 17:02, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I did remove the reference to "totalitarianism" from the introduction; and I will continue to do so. My response is to point out Boraczek's response, with which I totally concur. [3]. 9&oldid=8552336172 17:09, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW, Fred, have you even read the work of (or even heard of) the scholars whom I cited as having challenged the totalitarian model (for methodological reasons, not political reasons) such as Sheila Fitzpatrick, Stephen Cohen, J. Arch Getty, and Roberta Manning? I doubt that you have done so. When my colleagues and I see such unsubstantiated comments in students, we simply call it b.s.-ing. 172 17:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We do seem to share respect for at least one scholar, Stephen F. Cohen. He does use the word totalitarian, but in quotes, for example on page 31 of Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution: 'In his description of an omnipotent "single all-embracing organization ," Bukharin foresaw, however idiomatically, the advent of what came to be called the "totalitarian" state." He also anticipated the agonizing question this development was to pose for Marxists. Again on page 362, ' Unlike all too many Marxists, Bukharin recognized that the Nazi order was something new. It represented, he believed, the actualization of the "New Leviathan," the nightmarish potentiality in modern society that he had adumbrated in 1915, the "state of Jack London's The Iron Heel." And as his portrayal of Nazi Germany, its "totalitarian" order, "statism and Caesarism," in 1934-6 seemed to suggest, and as he confided privately, he feared that Stalinist policies and practices since 1929 were leading to a similar development in the Soviet Union.' When he puts totalitarianism in quotes, he's quoting those who do use the word. As he writes about Bukharin's ideas he is outlining the concept, as Bukharin put it, "a militaristic state capitalism".

Good. Then you should be familiar with the broader debate in Russia and Soviet studies between proponents of the 'totalitarian model' (such as Conquest and Brzezinski) and the 'revisionist' scholars (historical revisionism, not Historical revisionism (political)). Here are some cached links (so that the key words are highlighted) making reference to the debate on the 'totalitarian model' and Stephen Cohen that may be able to guide some further research. [4] and [5] are from Johnson's Russia Index. [6] is another example. For the leading works of the scholars working outside the totalitarian model see Stephen F. Cohen, Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History since 1917 (1985), J. Arch Getty, Origins of the Great Purges: The Soviet Communist Party Reconsidered (1984), Fitzpatrick, "New Perspectives on Stalinism" (1986), Fitzpatrick, "How the Mice Buried the Cat: Scenes from the Great Purges of 1937 in the Russian Provinces" (1993) These accounts do not use the 'totalitarian model' because (a) it does not adequately take into account the conflict between opposing groups and key figures that characterized the Soviet Union (Cohen) (b) it does not adequately take into account the primitive nature of the Soviet planning bureaucracy (Getty) (c) it does not adequately take into account the extent to which the Soviet authorities lacked complete control of the agency of the masses or the social outcomes of its own plans (Fitzpatrick). 172 02:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

172, here is a challenge: would it be possible for you to be a little more patronizing? Could you make an effort to increase your level of condescension beyond its present level?

Here is another challenge: would you go back to my previous challenge and actually explain what your problem is with stating that Stalin’s rule is often considered to be an example of totalitarianism? Unless you believe that the work of a few scholars is so dazzling that it made any discussion of ‘totalitarianism’ or even use of the word ‘totalitarian’ to be fundamentally ridiculous. But I am still waiting for you to offer us a concise summary of their work so that those of us who do not share your scholarly background (go on, mention your degree; we know you want to, and we will all be so impressed) can understand in what way ‘totalitarian’ is now passé.

This sudden shift in your position to “What Boraczek said.” is bizarre. You and Boraczek have been saying quite different things. Boraczek, in the comment you cite, was specifically rebuking you on the value of ideal types, and on the existence of totalitarianism as a phenomenon, and on its applicability to Stalinist Russia. Did you miss that? You have made an opportunistic alliance with someone who mostly disagrees with you, and claim that it validates what you have been saying. At least I recognize that Boraczek was only giving some of my statements a very limited endorsement. You are obscuring your own previous position because you believe you can catch the tide of the argument and ride it to success. If I were a well-educated academic like you, I could probably drop a Latin phrase that captures the debating device you are employing. But alas, I missed that class. What snide remark would you and your colleagues make about me?

In all earnestness, 172, your attack on Fred was over the line, unwarranted, and hardly a credit to academia. Do you actually have no more intelligent way to counter an argument? BS? I would call that ad hominem. What makes you think that Fred has not read those scholars? Just because he doesn’t swallow everything they say? And if he indeed has not read them (as I have not), why does that invalidate his opinion? Ah, but you must be responding to his charge about revisionist history. Your response for his response. Doesn’t that sound a little like mudslinging?
— Ford 18:01, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I still have not received an explanation on how full media control, the personality cult, death/gulag for dissenters, the massive purges, forced collectivization, etc. do not constitute a totalitarian state present in people's everyday lives. Even if it is not mentioned in the intro (which is bad enough) the fact that the word "totalitarianism" is not mentioned at all in the article is akin to not mentioning a similar (and true) charge against Nazi Germany, something to which I'm sure 172 would not object. As it is it is historical revisionism pure and simple. E. Rod 02:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am going to respond to your comments in no particular order. First, I disagree with your assertion that Boraczek disagreed with my comments considering the reference to totalitarianism in the intro. Note the following: "I don't find it correct to attribute creation of a political system to one person. What I think is worth mentioning is the personality cult rather than the totalitarian character of the political system." This seems compatible with my stance in favor of mentioning the cult of personality, the millions of lives lost in Stalin's consolidation of power in the 1920s and 1930s, the Great Purges, et al., without getting into a debate on methodology in political science (i.e. the merits of the old totalitarian model) in the intro of a biographical encyclopedia entry. Second, I don't understand why I should have to provide a summary of the work Russia and Soviet specialists who challenge the totalitarian model. My stance is that we do not need to deal with a debate on political science methodology in the intro; so I don't understand how playing out such a debate on the talk page is going to help. (If you are curious about their work, you can find reviews and journal articles dealing with their work in authoritative sites off Wikipedia that you can cite, as opposed to from a pseudonymous Wiki user. Going to JSTOR, Lexis Nexis, or other search engines will almost definitely serve you better than hearing it from me on this page.) Third, concerning the "condescension," since you are a relatively new user, you may not be aware of this, but Fred Bauder and I have not been the best of friends on Wikipedia for the past two years. He has never made a comment directed toward me in good faith, and have always responded to him in kind. (Since I've dealt with him so many times before, I knew what he was trying to imply by bring up "revisionism." Fred Bauder has the habit of likening users who disagree with any of his edits to Holocaust revisionists. For example, here Fred Bauder deliberately conflates Historical revisionism with Historical revisionism (political) in order to make a particularly viscous attack against me that was forcibly removed by the Arbcom election organizers. [7] In turn, I have compared the ways in which he has dealt with conflict with other users and me to McCarthyism.) However, I apologize for not thoroughly explaining the context of my response to Fred. I sincerely hope to avoid dragging other users into this conflict between Fred Bauder and me. 172 18:26, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I forgot something. Re: Boraczek, in the comment you cite, was specifically rebuking you on the value of ideal types, and on the existence of totalitarianism as a phenomenon, and on its applicability to Stalinist Russia. Did you miss that? No, I did not. I agree wholeheartedly that without heuristic models and ideal-types, we are lost as researchers. I do not even dismiss the relevance of the totalitarian model for Stalinist Russia in some areas of inquiry. But this has nothing to do with my removal of the term "totalitarianism" from the intro. That is not a question of challenging the totalitarian model as a useful tool for researchers, but of the relevance of bringing up a methodological debate in the introduction of this article. 172 18:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your fight with Fred, it is mudslinging nonetheless. Still, had I known the context, I might have been less incensed by it. I appreciate that you want to present an accurate and complete picture of Stalin (and Saddam, and others). I don’t know why you stated that you “totally concur” with Boraczek’s refutation of your argument just because it came, coincidentally, to the same conclusion. (I acknowledge that it was the same conclusion, but only coincidentally.)
— Ford (continues below)

I don't understand what you are talking about. His suggest that he disagrees that this methodological debate is germane to the intro; and that's the reason I removed the "historical example of totalitarianism" line from the intro. How is this a 'refutation of my argument'? I stand by my comments to Fred Bauder directing him to Boraczek's comments. 172 20:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose Boraczek can respond, but Boraczek seems to believe that totalitarianism is a valid description of Stalinist Russia, and that calling something an ideal type does not make it a problematic inclusion in an encyclopedia article, both of which were stated in direct response to you. The only reason the two of you agreed is that Boraczek, for different reasons, also wanted the line left out (because it was more a description of the broader system and less a description of what Stalin himself did). In any case, there has been no mention of methodological debate by anyone but you.
— Ford 21:48, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

But Boraczek is not an object to be bandied between us. Fortunately, it now looks like all of us (except perhaps Ruy) can agree to mention the cult of personality in the introduction. Good; let’s do that.
— Ford (continues below)

Well, if Ruy disagees, let's wait for him to explain his point. We can also wait for Mikkalai's input as well. 172 20:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Ruy has a point.

As an aside, an ideal type as you use it is nothing more than an abstraction or a class, and as such applies to most nouns and possibly all adjectives. You surely will not have us stop using nouns and adjectives. I totally disagree that mentioning totalitarianism in the introduction is bringing up a “methodological debate”. I don’t even know what you are talking about there. The word ‘totalitarian’ is not a tool devised for a metadiscussion on the scholarly exploration of social phenomena. It is a word devised to label a particular social phenomenon. Something happened in Russia and Germany, and we need to talk about it. And perhaps my chronology is off, but it was my understanding that reality in Russia and Germany came first. If the word ‘totalitarian’ was coined to describe this phenomenon, then one person’s version of the totalitarian model does not define the word; the reality in Russia defines it. Or, to put it another way, if one person’s model of totalitarianism does not adequately describe Stalinist Russia, then it is not a good model of totalitarianism in reality. As for why you should summarize the arguments, my point is simple. You claim that the idea of totalitarianism is partly or entirely discredited, and yet you do not say how or why. Cohen and Getty are not here objecting to the word. You are; the burden is on you, and you will say no more than “I have read some good arguments, so let’s not use the word.” If you want to be an exemplary editor (and it seems that you do), you should follow the usual practice of explaining your controversial edits on the talk page. You are not doing that; you are just saying, “Hey, I know some things.”

But forget the word. Why don’t we briefly describe the system? Would somebody please explain to me what is wrong with my characterization of Stalin’s rule as autocracy? As I said, Stalin had help, but perhaps the leading feature of the Stalinist system, to which the cult of personality pointedly contributed, was Stalin’s undisputed command. In Stalin’s own time, he was given all the credit and incomparable deference. His opponents were all eliminated, as well as many who were not his opponents, so that those left behind (or alive) were unwilling or unable to defy him in anything. His underlings deserve condemnation, but Stalin made every decision he was pleased to make, and virtually every one was carried out. What few exceptions there may be to this sweeping statement of mine are minimal compared to most any other ruler who could be named. What made Stalinist Russia so distinctive, from the point of view of its inhabitants? My answer: the pervasive influence of the centralized powers (party, police, bureaucracy, army) in the lives of all individuals, and the pervasive influence of one person (Stalin) in those centralized powers. (Just because Trey likes the word ‘pervasive’ doesn’t make it wrong.) If we fail to recognize this key fact of life under Stalin, we are not giving a good synopsis of his story, which the introduction should do.
— Ford 19:55, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Re: Or, to put it another way, if one person’s model of totalitarianism does not adequately describe Stalinist Russia, then it is not a good model of totalitarianism in reality. It sounds like you are making a plea to have Wikipedia affirm the literature on Stalinist Russia based on the totalitarian model. This is not NPOV; it is not our place to way into the debate on the merits of the classical totalitarian model. Re: Why don’t we briefly describe the system? Here, you are proposing that we develop our own regime typology. We do not do this because this is not our role. If you want to do this, try to submit an article to an academic journal like, say, Comparative Politics. If you want to write in detail about the Stalinist system, we have relevant articles on the History of the Soviet Union and Economy of the Soviet Union, where you can expand the content on the Stalinist economic system of administrative command. In addition, the Soviet Union ariticle will direct you to other related articles where you can discuss Soviet politics under Stalin. 172 20:29, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can see some problems with the use of totalitarianism in this article. In some sense it seems to imply that the Soviet Union was not totalitarian before Stalin or after him, which is not true. However during his period of control there was a more intensive development of the system, to the point that later Soviet leaders, who themselves presided over totalitarian regimes, marked it out for rebuke. Boraczek's response [8] does not seem to support 172's position. As to totalitarianism being an "ideal type" and thus somehow removed from use as a concept I find it hard to imagine any authority for that proposition, and even if there was, there is ample authority characterizing Stalin's regime as totalitarian. NPOV would require some characterization of who is saying one thing or the other, but it seems obvious that the characterization of Stalin's regime as totalitarian belongs in the article, if we are not to appear ridiculous, tiptoeing around an obvious fact. Fred Bauder 21:31, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

172: Where better to discuss the Stalinist system than in the article about Stalin? Am I missing something obvious here? I am not making a plea for the encyclopedia to affirm anyone’s model, merely to present facts. You are the one who keeps trying to frame this debate in terms of models and typology and, of all things, methodology. (Why do you persist in bringing up that word? It does not apply. We are not talking about how we should explore what happened, but about what happened. At the very least, I am not talking methodology — except perhaps on the methods of writing a collaborative encyclopedia article.) I am not calling for a discourse on Stalinism in the introduction. But something about the pervasiveness of his influence would not be out of line (especially when compared to trivia like the five-year plans). Are you disputing his influence as a matter of fact? Stating that his influence only existed if one accepts a particular academic model? I cannot accept that. It sounds to me like you are imagining a political-science debate in which you have been engaged elsewhere (hence your use of ‘models’, ‘typology’, and ‘methodology’). I am treating this like a history project. We cannot avoid making judgements, but I for one am not trying to explain the phenomenon of Stalinism, merely to describe it. I am talking about one or two sentences about the political system named after the subject of the article, and for which he was primarily responsible, and which is the most noteworthy thing about him. “Regime typology”? Nonsense. I have never called for a comparative discussion of Stalinism and anything else. I just think we need to briefly describe Stalinism, since this is an article about Stalin. (And we could skip the description if you didn’t have a problem with labels that might otherwise describe it. But we are forced to do things the hard way because the best available words will all be dismissed by you as “regime typology” or a “methodological debate”.) I fail to see why a brief description of his influence is inappropriate, at least in part because no one has offered even the slightest reason why I should think so. Stalin was a political figure. He had almost-unprecedented political influence. Isn’t that worth mentioning?
— Ford 21:53, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Your Q: Where better to discuss..? A:In Stalinism article. Don't put all eggs in one basket. Mikkalai 22:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then we should refer to Stalinism in the introduction. It is important, and it needs to go up front. But fundamentally, it is Stalinism, so a sentence or two would not be an outrageous diversion.
— Ford 22:18, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Then the last sentence of the article can state that his successors repudiated Stalinism and his cult of personality; but the comment that I've removed from the intro is inappropriate. 172 01:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be more careful when reverting

Dear ladies and gentlemen and not,

When you are going to revert a page, please check the version difference and scroll down to the end of comparison in order to check the whole text, so that you will not kill other edits, irrelevant to conflict. In the middle of edit wars some other innocent editors fix typos and do other useful job, often lost amid the reverts and re-reverts.

Thank you, 17:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think I fit into "not." That's cool though. Chun Il-shek 03:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trey, I asked you politely, both on this talk page and on yours not to revert the *whole* article. If you don't stop doing this, I am going to request the discussion of your behavior. Mikkalai 22:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Purges

" Towards the end of the purge, the Politburo felt that the people they delegated tasks to, such as NKVD head Nikolai Yezhov, had been over-zealous, and relieved them of their positions." Um, wasn't Yezhov not just "relieved" but executed? Also, this line seems to blame the excesses of the purge on Yezhov alone. Of course, many historians blame Stalin and argue that Yezhov was sacrificed at the end as the fall guy or, alternatively, gotten rid of because he (literally) knew where the bodies were buried. This section needs to be rewritten and balanced in order to make reference to other explanations for Yezhov's fall. AndyL 21:14, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He was executed later, see his article. Mikkalai 21:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My point is it is odd to mention his dismissal and not his execution. Also, the other points raised remain. AndyL 22:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it can mention later that he was dismissed and later executed, but the important point for this article is his dismissal. 172 01:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stalin's support for the Kerensky government

"Stalin was won over to Lenin's specific position on World War I following the latter's return from exile in April." Perhaps there should be some mention of Stalin's previous position when, as editor of Pravda, he advocated support of the Kerensky provisional government and suppressed Lenin's views? As well, there should be some mention that the April Theses was largely aimed against Stalin's position and it took Stalin some three weeks or so before he resiled his position and came over to support of Lenin's revolutionary position. Dealing with all of this through one line ""Stalin was won over to Lenin's specific position on World War I following the latter's return from exile in April." is more than a little misleading. AndyL 21:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Stalin School of Falsification"

Some mention should be made of the practice under Stalinism of airbrushing individual leaders who had fallen out of favour from old pictures, and allegations that Stalin falsified the history of the Bolshevik Party and the Soviet Union in order to support his position and obscure his various changes in line. AndyL 21:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I'll try to find some photos. Perhaps there will be some photos online from David King's The Commissar Vanishes online. If I can find some, I'll upload them and mark them as fair use. 172 01:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture of Trotsky airbrushed out of a picture in which he was celebrating with Lenin the second anniversary of the October Revolution in Red Square. (See Image:Trotskyout.jpg.) I also uploaded the original photo at Image:Trotskyin.jpg. They don't belong in this article, but perhaps someone will want to put them in the History of the Soviet Union series. 172 01:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed opening

Taking into account the above, and a few points that have not been mentioned, I would suggest the following reorganization:

“... was a Bolshevik revolutionary and the second leader of the Soviet Union. His style of government, known as Stalinism, was the subject of controversy from its earliest beginnings to the present. He reinstituted central planning and collective farming, and placed new emphasis on industrialization. The Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power; but millions of lives were also lost to famine. Stalin created a cult of personality around himself, and eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through skillful manipulation, patronage, tactical retreats, and ruthless purges that resulted in millions of deaths. A costly victory in World War II (1945) and the subsequent occupation of eastern Europe laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953.”

I believe that this is concise, hits the major points, represents a compromise on what to include, redresses the imbalanced economic picture, and presents facts, not theories. (For example, it does not attempt to explain the famine, but does give the reader an idea of why so many millions of deaths are often (and justly) attributed to him.) I would hope that it would not be rejected out of hand. If it were me alone, I would go much further, but I honestly believe that all of this can be justified under NPOV; and it reads better.
— Ford 02:55, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

If we have "totalitarian" mentioned at least one friggin time in this article then it'd be just peachy. 172 can even mention how his favorite Soviet historians think that making an attempt to deeply and continually involve the state in people's everyday lives is somehow not totalitarian.

Famine is to be removed. There were quite a few famines before stalin and before lenin. The issue requires explanation beyond intro. Instead, millions of deaths must be moved out of dependence of the term "purges". Because of a certain period being called Great Purge, there happens to occur a conflation of the notion of party purges and the political repressions against the rest of (partyless) population, never called "purge". For example, kulaks were not "purged", they were "liquidated as class", etc. So, a sentence smething like this: "...Millions of deaths are attributed to political decisions of Stalin's rule..." must be instead. Mikkalai 03:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would be fine with your proposed sentence, Mikkalai, but I rather doubt it will get past the committee. Your point about the purges versus other forms of killing is well taken, by me at least. But I still think famine must be mentioned; there was an extraordinary (read: notable) death toll from the famine, and given the common (if not universal) attribution of the famine to Stalin’s decisions (and the system of falsification that his terror encouraged), to exclude it would be a significant omission.
— Ford 04:18, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

I agree with Mikkalai's points above. There are some other problems. (1) This is a non-sequitur: "The Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power; but millions of lives were also lost to famine." The contradiction is not too clear. (2) His style of government, known as Stalinism, was the subject of controversy from its earliest beginnings to the present. Controversy among whom? Why is this relevant? How is Stalinism a 'style of government'? Wouldn't it be more apt to describe it as a political and economic system and/or as an ideology? (3) He reinstituted central planning and collective farming, and placed new emphasis on industrialization. I suppose that the term "reinstituted" is used in reference to War Communism? However, this statement ignores the ways in which the system of administrative command that emerged following the drafting of the first Five Year Plan differed from the policies of War Communism. 172 04:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ford seems interested in adding a reference to Stalin's personality cult to the intro. The easiest way of accomplishing this is keeping the intro that has stayed for months (and at that the one that has proved capable of satisfying the contending views of many editors over time) while adding the following to the end: "Rebuked by later generations of Soviet leadership, Stalin's successor as First Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin's crimes, unnecessary use of mass repression, and his personality cult." ¹

¹ Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the closed session of the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956 can be read online (Internet Modern History Sourcebook) at [9].
172 04:57, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion Ford's version is very good. I think we could make some minor improvements to it and put it in the article. Let me pass my comments to the above discussion.

1. I think the famine should stay, as it can be perceived as a cost of the transformation. Our task is difficult: we should mark some connection between the transformation and the famine, but without conveying any view on the causes of the famine. My attempt is The Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power; but during the course of the transformation millions of lives were lost to famine... (maybe it would be good to mention dekulakization here too, I'm not sure).
2. I agree with Mikkalai about the purges. Millions of deaths should be associated with the term "mass repression" (which Stalin's policies involved) rather than "purge".
3. I think 172's note (2) is justfied. Anyway, in my opinion the term "Stalinism" should definitely appear in the intro, either alone or with a few words of description.
4. BTW the article about Stalinism definitely requires more analysis from the standpoint of political science (including the issue of totalitarianism). Besides, we should work on cohesion between the articles "Joseph Stalin" and "Stalinism" (compare the "Stalin as a theorist" section of the former and the "Stalinism as a political theory" section of the latter).
5. I agree with 172's note (3), but I think it's just about the word "reinstituted".

Boraczek 10:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with the opening Ford put above:

• Controversial sounds like a weasel word. Bush is controversial, Clinton is controversial, what important leader is not controversial?
• You say millions died from a famine. Where did you pull those numbers from? The first reports of a supposed famine were by Goebbels, and the New York Times reported that his claims were false. Conquest's book, which is the prime source for most subsequent sources, used Nazi sources as well for his information. Also, I may have missed an edit that flew by, but this seems to be something new Ford wants to put into the opening paragraph, pouring gasoline on the flames of the current disputes. Most of the changes I have been making have been regarding what is discussed already, e.g. a purge is mentioned, I explain the motivation for the purge.
  • Ruy, if you don't trust the modern scientific works (which you can find here: [10] ), then maybe you will trust the official Soviet statistics from the 1930s? According to the statistics, the population of Ukraine in 1933 alone decreased by 2 million. If there had been no famine, then how come that more than 2 million people disappeared? Boraczek 13:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Then there's this sentence "Stalin created a cult of personality around himself, and eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through skillful manipulation, patronage, tactical retreats, and ruthless purges that resulted in millions of deaths." I've already discussed this before. For one thing if this is to remain at all in some form it must be split into separate sentences. This is the type of sentence that is all too typical of Wikipedia - it tries to compress a cult of personality, elimination of political opposition, skillful manipulation, patronage, not to mention "ruthless" purges which we are further told resulted in millions of deaths. This is just one of those sentences that grabs about six or seven buckets of mud, jams them all into one sentence, and see what sticks. And of course everything is jammed together to be linked - patronage in the USSR is linked to Stalin, a cult of personality is linked to ruthless purges that result in millions of deaths, it's an attempt to make the sum greater than the whole of the parts. I haven't even scratched the surface of what's wrong with this sentence, although I've spoken of it above.

• • I can't see anything wrong with that sentence (except the relation between purges and millions of deaths Mikkalai commented on) Boraczek 13:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One thing is this all becomes about Stalin - it's as if if Stalin had died patronage in the USSR would not have been a problem, as if the Central Committee would not have worried about the factionalization of the CPSU (and USSR) in the face of the coming Nazi invasion, as if the Polish nationalists in the Ukraine would not have been dealt with, and so on and so forth. We are talking about history here, not some NBC movie-of-the-week melodrama where all of Russia's problems flow from Stalin - if Stalin had died, someone like Molotov would have taken over, he would have been slightly less popular outside the party, he probably would have concentrated on helping communist parties in Europe more, but aside from minor details, I'm sure not much would have changed. Stalin is given way too much credit or blame here by actions really taken by the Politburo, Central Committee and CPSU. Ruy Lopez 11:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are taking a hypothetical history of the USSR and the party bureaucracy to say that we cannot attribute Stalin's crimes to Stalin. This does not work. As the leader of the Soviet Union he is responsible for what happened during his rule, whether certain "bureaucrats" got out of control or not. And considering you had a chairman after him who repudiated his crimes and never oversaw the kind of mass terror and repression Stalin did, it is clear who bears the most responsibility. I don't object to a mention of CPSU machinations, splits, whatever, so long as they aren't used as a tool to shift blame away from Stalin for Stalinism. J. Parker Stone 23:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: ...melodrama where all of Russia's problems flow from Stalin... This is a really good point. When people like Stalin come up, there are all these users on Wikipedia ready to start personalizing history. This statement earlier was also very well put: This is just one of those sentences that grabs about six or seven buckets of mud, jams them all into one sentence, and see what sticks. We have to be careful not to do this, not to personalize history, not to write any emotional reactions to Stalin in the intro. 172 18:40, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • The speculation that the same things would have happened if someone else than Stalin ruled does not alter the fact that it was Stalin who ruled and took some actions. We should not attribute neither too much nor too little to Stalin and I don't think Ford's version strays in this aspect. Besides, this is an article on Stalin and not about the Politburo, so we should describe Stalin's role here. Boraczek 13:02, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems, 172, that you managed to find just enough problems with my proposal to bring it right back to what you wanted, that we tack a statement onto the end. Nice sentence, by the way. “Unnecessary use of mass repression”? Under what circumstances would it have been necessary, do you think? Do you not think ‘crimes’ is more point-of-view than anything I have proposed?

Yes, it would be POV if this were the statement of the narrator voice, but notice the footnote directing the reader to a link to Khrushchev's speech to the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956. Thus, this is a reference to the POV of Khrushchev, which is historical fact. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is rather disingenuous to say that it is I who seem interested in adding the reference to the personality cult; rather, many of us do, including you.

I mentioned the fact that you were interested in adding a reference to his cult of personality in the intro. I did not state that you were the only one concerned with this. I think that you are reading more into my comments that I meant to imply. I mean no offense; and I respect what you are trying to accomplish with this article. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What happened to the word ‘Stalinism’ — or are we not allowed to link to that either?

If I forgot to link it, that was a mistake. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And that’s a dangling participle; or was it really Khrushchev who was rebuked?

To your points, then: Non-sequitur? We are talking about the economy. I say how it was transformed and “improved”, and I then immediately note in what way that transformation and “improvement” failed.

I disagree with speaking about the economy in terms of "improvement." The point was that the economy was transformed from an agrarian one to an industrial one based on a system of administrative command, and that can be for better or for worse. The point of my initial statement was that if the intro is going to speak of a relationship between the famine in the Ukraine and industrialization, it ought to articulate the relationship more precisely than the sentence that you are proposing. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a perfectly-obvious connection in a textual sense: facts about the economy. Of course, ‘non-sequitur’ is a logical term, and since “logical constructs” are forbidden in the introduction, we cannot spell out the rather simple theory that collectivization, central planning, and industrialization under Stalin’s direction allowed this former peasant society to experience such famine. But if we cannot mention a theory, the only thing we can do is present related facts, which is what I have done.

How can you have a problem with ‘controversy’? You are part of the reason it must be mentioned. Obviously there was controversy among his colleagues and his successors.

Speaking of controversy about Stalinism, we have an article about Stalinism. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And it is controversy about Stalinism that has kept us from mentioning totalitarianism, even as a controversial theory. The statement sets up the rest of the introduction, and the article itself. I would prefer to leave it out, but it is good writing for the commission you have given us. Your preferred opening is not. And ignoring for the moment the feeling of appendage created by your preferred solution, I will ask why Khrushchev alone is to be mentioned as disagreeing with Stalinism. Yes, he was important, but I suggest (which is all I can do in a short summary) that many disagreed with Stalinism, as well as disagreeing about Stalinism, whereas you invoke Khrushchev as an authority — the only person who gets mentioned by name — and then use him as a vehicle for introducing point-of-view conclusions that are not in a direct quote. (I share the point of view, naturally; but your version will be picked apart for ideological reasons, as the history of this paragraph shows.)

Again, as I stated above, since it is invoking Khrushchev, it is not POV. I wouldn't worry about it. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is Stalinism not a style of government? A government in a centrally-planned economy is an economic system, and of course it is a political system as well. ‘Ideology’ hardly covers the actions that we discuss (and should discuss) in the introduction. Stalinism was not just an ideology; it was a practice.

I meant that system of goverment was a better term, that's all. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, ‘reinstituted’ is a reference to the fact that the standard features of communist economics had already been introduced following the revolution, and then rolled back by the NEP.

There has never been the application of "communist economics" in the Soviet Union. If you meant "socialist" you also have to consider the extent to which the NEP was not a complete break with socialism. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is a more accurate statement, and better represents what happened, since the NEP was itself a change of course, whereas the previous opening suggested that it was the only thing the Bolsheviks had tried. And saying that my version ignores the differences between Stalinism and War Communism is finding fault for no reason. They were similar; they were different. We are producing a short summary, and we cannot go into how they were similar and different. Nor would you want us to.

The differences with War Communism nevertheless make all the difference. It was the first Five Year Plan that truly set up the complicated series of bureaucratic planning arrangements that managed and directed the economy until just 12 years ago. 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So in the end, as I feared, you have offered a slew of minor objections which have led you right where you wanted to go: your original idea, to throw a new sentence on the end of a paragraph that you keep claiming to be the product of an age-old consensus.

This article is the seventh site that comes up on a Google search for Joseph Stalin [11] and anyone with an internet connection can edit it. The fact that the intro has proved acceptable for so long on such an article on Wiki says something. Granted it is not prefect, but when dealing with an article such as this one, no paragraph is going to be perfect to everyone on Wikipedia. (Actually, it would be considerably different if I could be the only writer.) But it is good enough at consensus-building, and introducing the subject, for that matter.172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph is not very good, and, as we have proven recently, is not consensus-building. Ah, yes, but I suppose you have been editing this page for years, and pat, pat you have seen editors come and go, while this opening stands the test of time. Except that you think it needs the denunciation by Khrushchev. And Ruy wants to justify Stalinism. And Trey insists on ‘totalitarianism’. And none of us can agree on what facts should be included. But other than that....
— Ford 11:14, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

(1) No one can argue with the denunciation by Khrushchev; this is an important, relevant facutal statement. (2) I don't think that Ruy wants to justify Stalinism; I think that he'll be happy so long as users like Trey Stone or Fred Bauder insert their POV. (3) There has been a reason that "totalitarianism" has stayed out of the intro for years; and I'm sure that it'll continue to stay out of the intro. (because of problems with this interpretative model brought to light by more recent academic literature, which I noted in this response to Fred-- BTW, in that edit I meant the 'primitive' nature of the planning bureaucracy, in case you notice that mistake when you take a look at the link. ) 172 18:31, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well that part about Khrushchev is just excellent. I take interest in the part of his "secret speech" where he talked of how Stalin used violence and terror unnecessarily -- that while Lenin had used it to quell instability and defeat the "exploiting classes", Stalin used it after the main problems had been resolved. This would directly challenge the thesis (1 of the 3) of those Sovietologists you mentioned who think that Stalinism was somehow not totalitarian partly because of "conflict between key figures". J. Parker Stone 23:04, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My suggestion (I'm not a native speaker of English, so chances are the sentence I wrote sounds awkward; if so, please correct):

“... was a Bolshevik revolutionary and the second leader of the Soviet Union. His autocratic style of exercising power stamped the contemporary Soviet political system, which is thus known as Stalinism. Stalin created a cult of personality around himself, and eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through skillful manipulation, patronage, tactical retreats, and ruthless purges. He instituted central planning and collective farming, and placed new emphasis on industrialization. The Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power; but during the course of the transformation millions of lives were lost because of famine and repressions. A costly victory in World War II (1945) and the subsequent occupation of Eastern Europe laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953.”

Boraczek 20:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The second and third sentences will be contested as way too POV. The following is more succinct and factual, mentioning the five year plans, alluding to de-Stalinization, and the end of the NEP:

...was a Bolshevik revolutionary and the second leader of the Soviet Union. Under Stalin, who replaced the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s with five year plans (introduced in 1928) and collective farming, the Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power. Meanwhile, Stalin eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through tactical retreats, the expansion of social services, and ruthless purges that resulted in millions of deaths. A costly victory in World War II (1945) laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953. Future generations of Soviet leadership later rebuked Stalinism; Stalin's successor as First Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev later denounced his 'crimes', unnecessary use of mass repression, and his 'cult of personality'. ¹

¹ Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the closed session of the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956 can be read online (Internet Modern History Sourcebook) at [12].
172 23:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with 172's version:

1. This version ignores the form of Stalin's power and the contemporary political system of the Soviet Union. As Fred Bauder and Ford emphasized and convicingly argued that these aspects should be mentioned, this version does not look like an attempt at reaching consensus, but rather as one's personal version.
2. The cult of personality is an important and interesting historical phenomenon, which deserves more than listing as one of Khrushchev's accusations.
3. This version mentions collectivization and industrialization, but does not mention famine and dekulakization. Therefore, it conveys a definitely unbalanced view.
4. I have to say that the phrase "expansion of social services" is very mysterious. What does it refer to? Besides, I see no reason for removing the word "patronage".
5. The connection of the word "purges" with "millions of deaths" was questioned by Mikkalai. I and, I think, Ford agreed with Mikkalai. Nobody disagreed. Again, this version seems to ignore what has been said on this talk page.

Boraczek 09:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(1) The above version mentions centralized planning, collectivization, the five-year plans. (2) Actually, the above version contains the most information on his personality cult, mentioning that it was rebuked by his successors while at the same time it is implicitly clear that one was created. (4) I don't know about it being 'unbalanced'. Any one paragraph on the man who did more to mold the features that characterized the Soviet regime and shape the direction of postwar than anyone else is not going to mention a lot of important things. I see, though, that a new intro is in order not entirely based on the old, 'consensus' one. I will propose a new one working famine and the kulkaks into it. (5) The expansion of social services refers to just that-- health, education, housing, recreation, etc. This was a part of co-opting certain segments of the population while repressing others in order to strengthen the regime. Regarding patronage, I agree with a comment made earlier by Ruy Lopez. The sentence favored by you and Ford may seem to some an attempt to slip as much mud as possible into a single sentence. We have to pay attention to NPOV. (6) While the sentence links the 'millions of deaths' to his overall consolidation of power in the 1930s, and not just the purges, I see now that this is unclear. 172 17:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is clear that the old intro is not going to satisfy Ford, Mikkalai, Boraczek, Fred, Ruy, and me at the same time, with people calling for the addition of detail concerning the personality cult, dekulakization, Stalin’s role in shaping the features and attributes of the Soviet system, and the famine. Thus, below I am proposing a new, three-paragraph intro integrating all the points brought up in the current intro and the three proposed so far here on the talk page:

Joseph Stalin

Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, Iósif Vissariónovich Stálin), original name Ioseb Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი, Russian: Иосиф Джугашвили, Iósif Dzhugashvíli; see Other names section) (December 21 [December 9, Old Style], 1879¹–March 5, 1953) was a Bolshevik revolutionary. As general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party from 1922 to his death in 1953, Stalin molded the features that characterized the new Soviet regime and later shaped the direction of Europe following Soviet victory in the Second World War in 1945.

Under Stalin, who replaced the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s with five year plans (introduced in 1928) and collective farming, the Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power by the end of the 1930s. However, agriculture, which had been exploited to finance the industrialization drive, continued to show poor returns throughout the decade. Collectivization had met widespread resistance not from the kulaks, resulting in a bitter struggle of the peasantry against the authorities, famine, and possibly millions of causalities.

Stalin eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through providing the population benefits so as to co-opt them into the regime, or through purges. Stalin feared that the ruling Communist Party's factionalism might weaken the Soviet Union in the face of foreign enemies. In December 1934, Stalin set in motion a massive purge of the party known (see Great Purges). A hard-won victory in World War II, made possible in part through the discipline and capacity for production that were the outcome of industrialization, laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953. Future generations of Soviet leadership later rebuked Stalinism; Stalin's successor as First Party Secretary Nikita Khrushchev later denounced his 'crimes', unnecessary use of mass repression, and his 'personality cult'.¹

¹ Nikita Khrushchev's speech to the closed session of the Twentieth Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956 can be read online (Internet Modern History Sourcebook) at [13].

172 17:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please leave a version be and don't change it all the time, it's ridiculous. Some of you have to read what POV means again. You'll never find consensus on this theme if POV isn't just the largest acceptable opinion people and historians have on this matter. I find playing with words like "ruthless" and "totalitarism" so childish, for god's sake, why these things are not happening with Hitler or other leaders? --Kensai 09:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links

I don't mind a properly attributed short section on how wonderful, wise, and practical Stalinism or rather Marxism-Leninism is, as they would have it, including a short rendition of their view of how well things went during Stalin's rule, but I also want a short section which links to totalitarianism and briefly discusses the characteristics of a totalitarian state. Fred Bauder 18:11, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that'll fly here. You can try it here, though. 172 18:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did a google search for "Stalin" and "totalitarian" or "totalitarianism". It produced 154,000 hits. The top hit [14] I think may be of interest. The first notable thing is the way totalitarianism is used, not as a referent to a way that the life of a state is organized, but as a school of historians, in other words as a concept in historiography. The second notable thing is that there are two groups who see the Soviet state as totalitarian. One is right wing Americans (who I do not consider terribly credible). The other is modern Russian commentators, who I submit are intimately familiar with what life was like.

A similar search substituting Hitler for Stalin produces 202,000 hits. The top hit [15] supports the theme I have suggested that totalitarianism is one of the dominant themes of 20th century history. Fred Bauder 22:08, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

No one is saying that it is not a well promulgated theme. However, it is inappropriate to slip in theses on modern history that are reasonably contestable into this intro. Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. 172 22:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think we should reduce emphasis on the introduction. Trying to force particular language into it (or trying to keep it out) is productive of edit warring. However, we do need substantial material included in the article which reflects the way Stalin and his system was viewed, both by outside critics and those who lived through it. Fred Bauder 12:42, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Piecewise discussion of intro

I'm afraid if everyone will suggest a version of a complete intro, we are lost. I suggest to discuss items for inclusion one by one, and only then compose the whole text. Mikkalai 17:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are my favourite sockpuppet Mikkalai, I would very much like to work with you on this project. Please suggest your first sentence and I let me know on my talk page, and I will respond. One by one discussion, starting at the top of the article is the only way for articles to proceed once there are numerous editors arguing about what should go where and how. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am speaking about this particular case when the article is protected. Right now it is impossible for an average human to track all opinions in the talk page. Also, an intro is a special case, since it condenses the whole long article into several sentences. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact that 172 keeps using words like "ruthless", "costly", "co-opt", "unnecessary", "bitter", "massive", "major", etc in his writing shows that he really doesn't understand what NPOV is. His critics have known this ever since he edit-warred over New Imperialism, where he wrote that Wilhelm I was a "moron". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Things to be or not to be mentioned in into

So, let's collect building blocks, quickly figure out undisputable pieces and go teeth'n'claws about the rest.

Current (protected) version

Joseph Stalin

Iosif (Joseph) Vissarionovich Stalin (Russian: Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин, Iósif Vissariónovich Stálin), original name Ioseb Jughashvili (Georgian: იოსებ ჯუღაშვილი, Russian: Иосиф Джугашвили, Iósif Dzhugashvíli; see Other names section) (December 21 [December 9, Old Style], 1879¹–March 5, 1953) was a Bolshevik revolutionary and the second leader of the Soviet Union. Under Stalin, who replaced the New Economic Policy (NEP) of the 1920s with five year plans (introduced in 1928) and collective farming, the Soviet Union was transformed from a peasant society to a major world industrial power. Meanwhile, Stalin eliminated effective political opposition during the 1930s through skillful manipulation, patronage, and ruthless purges that resulted in millions of deaths. A costly victory in World War II (1945) laid the groundwork for the formation of the Warsaw Pact and established the USSR as one of the two major world powers, a position it maintained for nearly four decades following Stalin's death in 1953.

Intro image

Beginning with the image: thumb|Joseph Stalin: It does show a rather jolly little elf. Perhaps something more neutral? Fred Bauder 19:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

"jolly little elf". Yep, it was the appearance. He never showed his anger by screeching his teeth, stomping, throwing things, rolling on the floor. His calm voice and light smile could make a person either Hero of the Soviet Union or food for worms. Lenin was much more vivid and emotional in appearance. Mikkalai 19:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"little": you hit the nail here also. He was not tall, despite the image created by skilled photographers and articsts. Mikkalai 19:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - Economy transformation - - - -

NEP

• low relevancy. Majority of communists agreed it was temporary retreat. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Industrialisation

• High relevancy. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Collectivisation

• High relevancy. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - Personal power - - - -

Consolidation

• Distinctive feature. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

personality cult

• medium. I dislike the idea of slapping cliches into intro. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

totalitarianism

• medium. I dislike the idea of slapping cliches into intro. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Destalinisation

• Significant in Soviet history. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - death toll - - - - - -

• Significant in Soviet history. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- - external policy - - - -

WWII

• Significant. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact

• Significant. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Superpower

• Not many would disagree wth the fact. Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mikkalai 19:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)