User talk:Wisconcom/Archive1

Communism
If you're gonna do a rewrite completely changing an article's viewpoint, it's probably best to take it to the talkpage first, and besides I don't think whitewashing of brutal dictators is gonna go over very well here. Also, I saw what you did there, trying to sneakily remove the link to Tiananmen Square. Please try to be more subtle next time. Plutocow (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please, use actual, academic sources. And no. Wordpress and YouTube are not sources. GeeJayK (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That entire article is nothing but the worst Anti-Communist lies I have ever seen. Not even Wikipedia is willing to go this low. Not Stalin,nor Lenin, nor Hoxha, Castro, nor most other people who this article claimed were "dictators", Lenin was elected to his post by a council of Soviets and members of the Communist Party. Stalin was elected by a vote of the Workers' Councils as well - four times. In fact, Stalin attempted to resign from his posts atleast three times, but was prevented by the orgins of government, due to his popularity. This article is taking great leaders and thinkers, who fought Imperialism and exploitation from the Nazi and American Empires, and made their countries better places, and turning them in to comic book vilians. It is even willing to cite "sources" like the "humans right watch", which is directly funded by the US government to spread Anti-communist nonsense. I am willing to open up intellectual discussion of this matter, however, by merely looking at the Capitalist ideology that is so rampant on RationalWiki, I am unsure if you will be able to do that. Wisconcom (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lenin came into power after a coup. When his party was crushed on the he just ignored the result and closed down the the House. GeeJayK (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'll admit "dictator" is a bit of a loaded term, as even the most despotic leader needs to have at least an army willing to back them. Still, that doesn't change the fact that governments like the Soviet Union (especially post-Kronstadt) was not a democracy, as the elections would only have one person standing, and a small amount of people at the top effectively had all the power. While the Soviets eventually fought the Nazis, they were collaborating with them earlier on to carve up Poland and seize the Baltics, and actions like their invasion of Afghanistan were certainly imperialistic. HRW does have problems, and they are funded by a few neoliberal billionaires (but I can't find any information to suggest that they are directly funded by the US) but you have to do more than that, any organization is going to have biases but you have to see if the information is accurate (also, it's worth noting that their page on the US is very critical). I'm anticapitalist myself, but that doesn't mean I like authoritarian regimes that often, in practice, were state capitalist anyway. If you want to have intellectual discussion, fine, but you are going to have to engage more critically with your biases. Plutocow (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Soviet Union was a democratic society, both economically and politically. Firstly, I do not see how the Kronstadt muntiny would really make the early Soviet goverment any more a "dicatorship", as the people who led that opressing were actively of very concerning creeds and alignments, with some of the leaders even showing support for the White Army, and others being Capitalistic Anarchists, or some others were Anti-semites. That is not to mention the fact that the people who started the Kronstadt muntiny had absurd demands, requesting extravagantly large rations, a near-total reduction in their service hours, and so on. That munity saw a considerable amont of support from the Western powers as well, with letters being sent to Finnish functionaries for the purpose of reaching out to France and the UK, who themselves would attempt to support the Rebels with funding and arms, all of this was happening in the middle of a brutal civil war, mind you. I do not see how suppressing a Capitalist munity, whose leader have known ties with hostile governments, and who are demanding supplies that you cannot give is "authoritarian", or it is atleast not in the context of the military confilct which the Bolsheviks were engaged in.


 * Elections did not have merely a single leader to elect, in theory, everybody who was eligible to vote and hold office (a fundamental right which was given to everybody, particularly in the 1936 constitution) could become the leader, or be given a major office in the government. This is how many peasants and poor workers would rise to be put in government posts, Stalin included.


 * However, it was simply the case that certain figures, particularly the surviving old bolsheviks, had more popularity with the people than others. Stalin - a person who had personally befriended Lenin, who defeated the Czarist forces near the Volga river, who had proven himself in the early 1920's, in the USSR early days, he was simply popular among the people. and was elected many times.


 * The Soviet Union did not "collaborate" with the Nazis, in fact, they had attmepting to create a united front of sorts with the Western Liberal Powers to stop them in the first place, namely with the UK and France. However, neither of those two cared much about stoping Fascism, as is expected with Capitalists, and it forced the USSR into a more desparate condition. The non-aggression pact (note, that is not an alliance) the Soviets made with the Germans was more in the nature of "buying time", the Soviets thought that if they could delay a German invasion by years, that would likely be more time to build up war-time industry and develop the armed forces. What were France and Britain doing while of this was occuring? Little more than "appeasing" the Nazis, dooming entire nations to Nazi genocide and colonization, and further, in a military context, they were not "drawing up the battle plans" to fight the Nazis, but rather, were planning on bombing Soviet cities in the caucasus. They never cared, nor did the United States of America care, supporting Fascist governments in Chile, Zaire, Hati, Brazil, and so forth.


 * I agree that by 1979, the Soviet Union had grown social-imperialist (I side with Enver Hoxha in the Albanian-Soviet split), but you are speaking ahead of youself, I would argue. Claiming that Stalin's Soviet Union was the same in its external and internal policies to Khrushchev or Brezhnev is false, as the latter two effectively restorted Capitalism and the Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie to the Soviet Union (and by effect, the rest if the Warsaw Pact). The Revisionist post-1953 Soviet Union is not indicative of what a Socialist State is.


 * Lastly, you are correct, HRW are not directly funded by the US government, however, they still support the opressive economic sactions on the Republic of Cuba and Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Even if you dislike those governments, the people do not deserve to be put in the cross-fire. Wisconcom (talk) 7:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You actually do make a good point regarding sanctions. It's the people who suffer the most from them. Guess a stopped clock is right twice a day, huh? Vee (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Minor" edits
Please restrict your use of the 'This is a minor edit' box to edits that fix spelling, grammar and/or formatting. Thank you. Bongolian (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This user seems to make a consistent note of "minor edits" that are actually purposeful whitewashing. They've done this as recently as yesterday. It is definitely a continued pattern. Vee (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

No hard feelings
A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment. GeeJayK (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

What are you doing?
You're making a mockery of yourself. Stop it. No one is impressed by your anti-capitalist advocacy when you spend your time baselessly accusing others of being fascists (you are literally a self identified Stalinist, pot call kettle), an-caps or neolibs like every other discount "communist" on the internet. Get a grip. I'm not even a capitalist, but you're making a fool of yourself. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am doing nothing but aiding in the fight against Fascism (including Social-fascism) and spreading revolutionary ideology to the masses.


 * "The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists, thinking that they insult us, and, in fact, that is what they have in mind. But, on the contray, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists for while we maintain such a stand the enemy cannot and will never force us to our knees." -Enver Hoxha
 * Wisconcom (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why historically every major ML party has either gone down in flames or has all but abandoned Marxist-Leninist policies. Vee (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Revolutionary ideologies such as "Stalin was good"? Give me a break, the only revolution you're causing is the revolution of my head after it spins from your ignorance. ---Ozzyboo (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism-Hoxhaism. Already, I have informed the RationalWikians of the moribund state of Capitalism. I am spreading the revolutionary desire for the replacement of Capitalism. Wisconcom (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HA HA HA HA, oh wait, you're serious, aren't you? Let me laugh even harder. HA HA HA HA HA HA Vee (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever. Your Ultra-left brand of Socialism has done nothing for the international working class, not even a revolution has come from "Anti-stalinist" Socialists. Mean while, Communists have been building international movements and leading revolutions. When a revolutionary situation arises, it will be led by a Vanguard Party that adheres to Leninist or Hoxhaist theory. Wisconcom (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Catalonia, the Zapatistas, and Rojava all say hello. Vee (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Catalonia was de-facto State Socialism (here's a source), the Zapatistas have done nothing in regards to spreading the revolution beyond a few areas of jungle, and Rojava has allied with the USA and is simply Capitalist, just with small private-ownership being dominate. The USSR, Albania, Mongolia, Korea, and others say hello. Wisconcom (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And in the USSR, severe class differences (between those of the party and those not of the party) and private property ownership (by those in the party) was still a thing. Seriously, you're a self-parody of socialists. Grow up. Vee (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, Youtube again? Vee (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are using a Liberal understanding of "class". The Soviet Union was controlled by one class - the Workers. The Workers dominated the party, the government, the economy, and so on. What do you mean "private property ownership"? Firstly, the people who were state-planners were all elected by the people, and were themselves of the working class, secondly, they did not extract surplus value, thirdly, they did not own anything; they simply directed resources and such. Wisconcom (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Elected" meaning they had only one real choice: "Yes". A rubberstamp electorate if I've ever seen one. Also, no, the workers were just as oppressed in the USSR as they were elsewhere. Stalin literally made it illegal to strike, remember? Also, these "state planners" clearly had more privileges than the average citizenry, and these privileges were clearly institutionalized by them being members of the Party. How does that not count as a class distinction? Vee (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources? Read the Soviet 1936 Constitution, it disproves everything you said. Wisconcom (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, here's a quote: "The direct political influence of the working masses in socialist society is not in any way hampered by the communist party which represents the working class, whose interests do not run counter to the interests of the other working people. On the contrary, it is only under the leadership of thw working class and its vanguard that the working masses participate broadly in governing the country and realizing their interests." -Enver Hoxha Wisconcom (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you not speak for yourself? You have to cite other people's work (including a literal piece of Stalinist propaganda from the Big Man himself) to do your arguing for you? Vee (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's literally just an assertion, not an actual rebuttal. Try harder. Vee (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read Soviet Democracy, by Pat Sloan. It refutes many of these assertions. Wisconcom (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to read something when you're too lazy to do the work of actually summarizing its content. Vee (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Indentation
When threads get long, indentation becomes absolutely necessary to keep them readable. Make sure to use indentation. There are no rules per se on them, but generally if you are the first post in the thread you don't use indent, the first response adds only 1 :, and subsequent replies add as many as the one before them + 1. Like this:

First post (signature) : Second post (signature) :: Third post (signature)

When too much indentation is used, we use Template:Od. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Tip
While it's true that you'll have a hard time by adding ML stuff on our Main space, we do have an essay space for less mainstream views. Unless you write something really egregious (the kulaks deserved it, the Katyn Massacre is a lie!) it probably won't be collapsed or reverted. Just don't flood it with tons of different essays. GeeJayK (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk Page Threads
I strongly advise you not to make edits like this, where you add commentary in the middle of a thread. This tends to make threads less readable over time, as conversations within the thread become messy and disconnected. Instead, just add to the bottom of the thread, with an indication as to who you're responding to (for instance, with the ping template). 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒  talk  20:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ProleWiki
You already have your own pet wiki. Clearly your edits would be more welcome over there than over here. That is, unless you "pull up a goat" and actually decide to engage in constructive dialogue and not impose your will on certain articles without consensus. Vee (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Archiving
Archiving isn't to be used to hide comments you don't like from your talkpage; it's to remove old and/or resolved conversations. If you would like, I can set up an auto-archiver on your talkpage. Plutocow (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little too harsh with your edits to the Nazbol page
They were good edits, so I apologize for snarking at your behalf. On the other hand, please refrain from editorializing on the article. Vee (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Your wiki's defense of Putin
Seriously, what the fuck is this? Putin is not gonna restore the USSR. What the conflict in Ukraine is is simply a conflict between two opposing would be hegemons. Pure Putinist propaganda by far. Vee (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That was a user by the name of Forte, not me. I understand Russia to be a Imperialist-Capitalist power. I have gotten into a number of arguments with that user concerning Russia and the Russo-Ukrainian War. I disagree with a number of things that the leadership of that community promotes, particularly in regards to China being "socialist" and such. If you want to discuss your concerns about this topic, you ought to do this over there. Lastly, this is unrelated, and does not concern my ideas or actions. Wisconcom (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. I would bring it up over there, but the wiki creation process is draconian, and I am not sure, as a non-ML, that I would be welcomed there. Vee (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd bet that their main source on ML is . That says a lot about them. GeeJayK (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, some members of ProleWiki do, unfortunately, use that author as a source to attempt to increase support for China. However, I do not fall into the "Dengist" camp. Wisconcom (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reason I'd even consider joining is cause frankly the state of that wiki is pitiful. Vee (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm immediately suspicious of a wiki that requires agreeing to a list of ideological precepts before joining. Vee (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We have such a system due to recent spamming and vandalism. I dislike it in many ways, considering they forbid most Hoxhaists and Maoists from joining, and commonly only allow Pro-Chinese Communist Party Communists to join. Wisconcom (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have email set up? Vee (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I do. Wisconcom (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Check your Discord. Vee (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)