User talk:Moxy

Hello!!
Click here to post a message to me

This editor is a
Senior Vanguard Editor
and is entitled to display this
Duranium Editor Star with
the Neutronium Superstar hologram.

This user received the Editor of the Week award.

This editor is Supreme Gom, the Most Exalted Togneme of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to keep the floor plan of The Great Library of Alecyclopedias, including its cardboard carrying tube.

This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than 15 years (18+).

This user is not an administrator and has no desire to be one.

.

More about me: See here

Topik terhangat Iin12 (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Edziza

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I've nominated Mount Edziza for FA if you're interested in participating. Volcanoguy 19:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will give my input as soon as someone opens up the review. Don't feel qualified enough to review this topic... but can review sourcing and general protocol adherence. Moxy🍁 19:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing sourcing and general protocol adherence would be fine. Volcanoguy 23:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for The Citation Barnstar Moxy! Dasomm (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November music

greetings from a trip -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for coming over! - I uploaded pics of a trip that was a 10-day celebration of a 16 November event, but the day was also when a dear friend died. We sang Hevenu shalom aleichem at his funeral yesterday, and it was good. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello,I'd like to meet you. Can we be friends, please? Where are you from? Has Wikipedia been an audience for you? Thank you. Happy editing! r Abduvaitov Sherzod Wiki 88 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Can you please make sure to add an edit summary in all your edits? Thank you for your contributions though! Apenguinlover<talk>() 17:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont bother for vandalism Edits with summaries 80.4% Moxy🍁 17:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, have a good day! Apenguinlover<talk>() 11:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert my edits.

@Moxy hello, Why did you delete what I had written in the articles on Persian literature and culture of iran?!! This content is now available in other Wikipedia languages. Please revert my edits as I have properly researched them carefully before making them. Thank you, good luck. Hamedjavan (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:PROMOTION ...more info at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DarvishanpourbamiMoxy🍁 14:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist state", "Socialist state, "List of socialist states" and "List of communist states"

Hi

I am back! :) I won't edit war with you or anything else, really!

But I want to collaborate. You reverted my edits on "Communist states" for the simple reason that there was a "Lots heres doing best to restore to before puppet edit... retaining 7 edits".. But you didn't say anything about the quality of my edits. All those edits were made by reliably third party sources. I am wondering if you are interested in going through those edits together to see what you actually disagree with? The same goes for the "List of communist states".

As for the "socialist state" article, you wrote, "Last good copy i can see", despite my whole text being referenced by tertiary sources. I can also source primary sources, showing that Marx and Engels never used the term "socialist state" and the fact that Lenin said that the USSR was not a socialist state. Again, I would like to go over the edits with you and find out what you disliked soooo much.

I won't make a single edit without you, and without consultation with the wider community on those pages. However, its important to note that this time you actually have to discuss because I am not going anywhere :)

Have a nice day, hope to hear from you! TheUzbek (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes any mass removal of content or whole article change will need a talk Moxy🍁 14:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I messaged you here. Are you interested in a talk?

Secondly, my edits on "Communist state" was not a "mass removal of content or whole article change".... Most of the information was retained, but the article restructured. I would like to hear you're opinion on this. TheUzbek (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was certainly restructured, but it doesn't appear to be correct to say that most of the information was retained - for example the revision seems to omit discussion of Trotskyist theory. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing up articles. The "Communist state" article, as it is now, does not have any information on Trotskyist theory. As for the socialist state article, it presents Trotskyist theory wrongly. Trotsky did not articulate a different conception of socialist state from that of Stalin, but he believed that Stalin's policies degenerated/deformed the communist state.

So please, if that is you're only objection to the revert then please change you're objection. TheUzbek (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vif12vf: @Nikkimaria: Context [1] Moxy🍁 15:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why are you reintroducing this discussion? Why can't we all agree that we want to improve Wikipedia? As for the communist state article, you reverted on the grounds "Lots heres doing best to restore to before puppet edit... retaining 7 edits"... That is, you don't really have a reason for reverting it. You have not written one specific reason for why my edits on communist states were bad. Not one single one. Can't you, at the very least, give me that? What was worse? What changed?

I feel that instead of actually telling specifically what is wrong Moxy, you are intentionally vague. I mean, I am about to send in articles on the communist form of government and the highest state organs of power in communist states do the Communist and Post-Communist Studies. I am not a fool on this topic; and my submittion has been written under the supervision of specialists in the field from the University of Oslo. This is not to say that all my opinions are correct, and I should be treated any different from any other users. But you could at least show me some respect by saying specifically what is wrong with the article. Reverting texts on the basis of "Last good copy i can see" sounds like bullying to me.

So please come up with something specific. But to make the following clear

Marx and Engels did not articulate a theory of "Socialist state"; they never used the term "socialist state". If they ever mentioned a new form they used terms like "Republic of Labour", the "Social Republic" et. cetra. I can say this because I have read most of Marx's works.
Lenin did not have a different conception of the state than Marx and Engels, theoretically. That is, Lenin did not have a different conception of the state from Marx and Engels. All three believed the state to have a class character, to be the executive committee of the ruling class. This is not to say that Lenin did not have different ideas from Marx and Engels, he did, but he did not have a different state conception. Lenin, unlike them, used the term "proletarian state", "socialist state" et cetra but never defined them. Despite naming the new state the Union of SOviet Socialist Republics, Lenin wrote, "Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order" Trotsky more or less agreed, he believed the USSR had created the condition for socialism in 1925 writing that the establishment of a state “monopoly of foreign trade" "is the necessary condition of socialist state structure in a capitalist environment.” At last, Marx only defined the first post-capitalist period as a transitory period, "Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" Lenin agreed, and despite using the term socialist and workers' state, Lenin never drew the line that Stalin would later make. He believed that the SOviet state was unique, noting, "It follows that under communism there remains for a time not only bourgeois law, but even the bourgeois state, without the bourgeoisie!". This is unlike Stalin that talked about "a new type of state"
Trotsky did not have a different conception of the state from Marx, Engels or Lenin, but he vehementely objected to Stalin's policies. He believed the USSR to be a degenerated workers' state, but his understanding of state was no different from Marx, Engels and Lenin. I have never read anywhere that Trotsky had a different theoretical conception of what a socialist state was from Stalin either. He opposed Stalin's dictatorship, but he believed in the planned economy and the nationalisation of industry. His objection was that a socialist state could not be achieved without democracy.

When treating these topics one must understand the essence of Marx's theory of the state, which is that the state is a product of specific material relations and the ruling class of the state is a byproduct of these (elementary Marxism). One must also understand that the term workers' state is not necessarily synonymous with socialist state. Its a term that denotes the goal of representing the working class but not what Marxists call the material circumstanes. That is why Lenin wrote, "A workers’ state is an abstraction. What we actually have is a workers’ state, with this peculiarity, firstly, that it is not the working class but the peasant population that predominates in the country, and, secondly, that it is a workers’ state with bureaucratic distortions." The clearest definition Lenin ever gives of what socialism, and indirectly a socialist state is, is the following, "For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

As for other glaring missteps, why does an article on the socialist state have a section on "Reform and revolution"? Bernstein, Kautsky et cetra never really used the term socialist state in their articles or books. The disagreement between them and the Bolsheviks was not socialist state, but how to take power on behalf of the working class. Unlike Marx, Engels and Lenin they believed they did not need to destroy the bourgeouisie state to succeed in their socialist aims. I say Marx because he wrote, "But the working class cannot simply lay hold on the ready-made state-machinery and wield it for their own purpose. The political instrument of their enslavement cannot serve as the political instrument of their emancipation"

As for the section, "Criticism within left-wing movements", nothing is referrened by third party sources.

"A people's republic is a type of socialist state with a republican constitution". A people's democratic state is, by definition (according to Marxist-Leninist teaching), a state that has an organisational form of state power that is communist, but still has not established the pure leadership of the dictatorship of the proletariat. That is why Laos constitution states "people's democratic state. A people's democratic state does not constitutionally enshrine a socialist economy; a socialist state does. THis is important because the ruling class is a reflection of material circumstances.

I have written long now, and only used primary sources: my tertiary sources are the ones you reversed Moxy. None of these articles have been written by people who have read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, and obviously the basic lack of understanding of Marxist-Leninist theory is way obvious. I have read these; you clearly have not: I have also read the academic literature on these topics, as my edits you reversed prove.

As far as that goes that means you should at least bother to discuss things with me, say specifically what is wrong and come with constructive feedback on how to improve these articles. You have failed to do so, and instead come with vague sentences to defend what is (but failing to them the actual content in the current articles). TheUzbek (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if this is the difference between western education vs not. Dont have time for a wall of text with no source nor cotent suggestions, but on point 2 "Marxism predicted that the working class, or proletariat, would rise up in a spontaneous revolution. However, Leninism argued that this revolution needed leadership from a vanguard party made up of professional revolutionaries. While Marxism foresaw a temporary dictatorship controlled by the proletariat, Leninism resulted in a lasting dictatorship led by the Communist Party. Additionally, Marxism mainly focused on revolutions in industrialized nations, whereas Leninism also recognized the revolutionary potential of peasants in mostly agricultural countries like Russia." Moxy🍁 12:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Western education; I'm from Norway. If you want references, see my versions of communist state and socialist state articles; I mean, it is there and you know it. :)
Marx was vague, but he said a transitory period, you are correct. Lenin's aim with the Russian Revolution was to start a revolutionary wave and transform Germany into a communist state (the Munich Revolution). This was important since Russia was, as Lenin repeated time and again, a backward country that had barely developed capitalism. Notice that Lenin did not negate Marx's theory that revolutions should occur in advanced states; his theory was that capitalism was weakest in the periphery (like Russia and China), and that revolutions there would instigate revolutionary waves in the advanced capitalist states. So Lenin agreed with Marx, but he foresaw that the revolutionary wave would not start in England. However, Lenin never negated Marx's central claim. Lenin also had problems dealing with the state; when would the state begin to whither away? Immediately during the transition or at the end? That is why Lenin also failed to articulate a theory of law/legal system. If the state would whither away why have a legal system? Stalin was the man that dealt with these questions.
Because of the failure of the Munich Revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a big problem.... Russia was a backward state and could not foreseeably construct socialism without advancing capitalism. Lenin then began to theorise that the communist party should take responsibility for implementing "civilisation" (that is, capitalist and socialist policies) in Russia. By saying so, Lenin admitted that Russia was both ways; it had a non-capitalist ruling class but a feudal-capitalist economy. Stalin, however, believed one could "skip" capitalism, "[If] we do not regard our country as the base of the revolution, we have not got what is needed to build socialism, and we cannot build a socialist society—in which case, if the victory of socialism in other countries is delayed, we must resign ourselves to the prospect that the capitalist elements in our national economy will gain the upper hand, that the Soviet regime will decay, and the Party will degenerate." Lenin, of course, increased the transition, but he never said that Russia was socialist (he also opened up for the possibility having two or three stages; a lower, middle and advanced stage). It was Stalin that made the transition a very long affair, which he made clear in his speech to the Joint Plenary Session of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the 16th Congress on 7 January 1933;

“Some comrades have interpreted the thesis about the abolition of classes, the creation of a classless society, and the withering away of the state as a justification of laziness and complacency, a justification of the counter-revolutionary theory of the extinction of the class struggle and the weakening of the state power. Needless to say, such people can not have anything in common with our Party. They are either degenerates or double-dealers, and must be driven out of the Party. The abolition of classes is not achieved by the extinction of the class struggle, but by its intensification. The state will wither away, not as a result of weakening the state power, but as a result of strengthening it to the utmost, which is necessary for finally crushing the remnants of the dying classes and for organising defence against the capitalist encirclement that is far from having been done away with as yet, and will not soon be done away with.”

Important to note here is that Stalin introduced two amendments to classical Marxist doctrine: firstly, he postponed communism, and secondly, he answered the vexing question of how communists should deal with the state. However, Stalin had still not been able to articulate why the Soviet state represented a new form of state. And, in fact, he never did. Instead, on 5 December 1936, the Soviet Union adopted a new constitution that defined it as a “socialist state of workers and peasants”. This is an exceedingly vague term, and Stalin only mentions in passing in his speech, “On the Draft Constitution of the U.S.S.R”, that “we now have a fully formed multinational Socialist state”.

And yes, its a long "wall of text", but this is a complicated topic and I'm trying to show you a modicum of respect by actually representing what actually happened instead of simply writing "wrong". TheUzbek (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR stop after seeing " I mean, it is there and you know it. :"...for the 4th time Article talk page so others can be invovled. Moxy🍁 16:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't stop reading you're text despite you always repeating that im a sockpuppeter or referring to a mistake I made.... Show some class; I am only trying to establish a level of trust between us.

As for the talk page; you are the main obstical; you are the one that reverted the changes, and you seems to single-handedly fail to actual write why my changes are bad. Either accept you did wrong, or plainly write it down. TheUzbek (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheUzbek, I agree that this kind of thing belongs on an article talk page, and since this is the "bury everyone in walls of text until everyone gives up or you all get blocked" is the kind of thing I mentioned being worried about in the unblock discussion. If you get really stuck with someone, you can try getting a WP:3O to break the deadlock. But otherwise it's probably best to just move on to a different article. There are all kinds of things that need doing, many of which are articles that don't even exist yet. -- asilvering (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave be; I really just wanted to get a fresh start with Moxy; that was my sincere wish. Let bygones be bygones and get a functioning working relationship. It was not as easy as it seemed.

Moxy, I will always be open to working with you. If you ever change you're mind you know where you'll find me! TheUzbek (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian genocide of Indigenous peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O. E. Lang

Hi there. I know you do a lot of edits on Canadian topics. Would you have a moment to look at Timothy O. E. Lang. I'm getting the sense this is a failed political candidate (but accomplished individual), and have not found significant coverage to support notability. I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]