Talk:Ilie Moscovici

Relation to Serge Moscovici

What source exactly points to Serge being a nephew of Ilie? I've only seen such claims on dubious websites, which say Serge was the son of Ilie's more politically conscious brother. That is highly unlikely considering the latter (and his wife) hardly stayed in Romania in the interwar (not the least because he faced immediate arrest and possibly a long prison sentence).Anonimu (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is with sourcing Ilie's relation to Ghiţă Moscu's, not to Serge (I know, I had picked the former up myself at some point, possibly because it appeared in a credible online source that has since retracted or disappeared). Now surely you can see the source stating Ilie's relationship with Serge, as quoted in the article's very last paragraph: it's a Le Monde piece from a quite credible leftist author. Verify it here.

Before we start shooting blanks here, let's note that both stories may prove to be equally credible, and not mutually compatible. We don't know how many brothers Moscovici had for sure -- Serge could easily be Ilie's nephew from another sibling.

As for the sinister sources out there, they seem to be obsessed with the Moscovicis, and make all sorts of ludicrous claims about them, only because Ilie is briefly cited as the leader of some crudely-imagined Jewish plot against Romania, in Zelea Codreanu's For My Legionaries. It is so moronic a claim, so easily contradicted by facts and basic chronology, that those people have to take extraordinary leaps of imagination just to keep it going. Because, you know, a convicted murderer with mystical delusions can't possibly be wrong.

In the end, poor Ilie was maligned by both the "more politically conscious" communists and the fascist shrubbery. I for one find that this makes him eminently respectable. Dahn (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The source is not the best, but, hey, it fits our requirements so I'll leave that alone.

Regarding Moscu: they were both born in the same village in the same period (and judging by the 1930 census, the settlement wasn't even close to a Jewish centre) - confirmed both by his Soviet death record and the short bio note published along with his 1968 rehabilitation. Statements about the relationship between Moscu and Ilie are indeed rare in pre-1989 literature, but not absent. Stelian Tanase seems convinced of the fact, and even says this kinship was an aggravating factor against Moscu during the Great Purge (of course, Tanase is not exactly an historian, and it would be neither the first, nor the last time he adopts tropes of the far right in order to make a point).Anonimu (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Anonimu, if you have the sources, by all means add them. I don't object to any of them (except perhaps the rehabilitation note -- if it was published, where was it published? we don't cite the raw document). Dahn (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Uhmm... I'll wait until something more credible pops up. This article would use some revisiting to fix some of the non-essential bias here and there, so I'll eventually return to it. And rest assured that the almost 9-1 years on WP taught me a thing or two about sourcing.Anonimu (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I only mentioned that because I note the raw document is indeed cited in the other article. Dahn (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about...Anonimu (talk)

Citation

How does this not verify that the party also called itself Unitary (or Unified, if you prefer)? Dahn (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If your referring to the article "Le Congres du Parti Rumain", it doesn't. The "Parti Unifie" is just a description of the party reuniting the right wing that left before the Congress with the centrist wing that left in the months following it, it's not the name of a party (not to mention that, even if you mistakenly took the second capital as the name of a party, the "Socialist" part in the article would be your invention). Of course, if you're referring to another article in that newspaper, please name its title.Anonimu (talk) 05:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It would now of course be up to you to prove that, although used in the source as the name of the party, and with a capital letter nonetheless, this was not in fact an alternative name of the party -- evidently not the ultimately official one, evidently not one that stuck, but neither does our text say it was either. Just that the party was "also known as", which is frankly exactly what "just a description of the party reuniting etc." means. (I have removed "Socialist", although I find your objection contrived.)

Please understand that I only added it as an alternative because I found it in the source as such, and this provided the reader encyclopedic detail. And whatever you make of it, it is still just that: a detail.

Now, in the course of my researching of an article some glitches may appear, and in fact you're welcome to verify the text and the sourcing however you see fit. In this case, the glitch was simply that I had not noticed that the source most likely refers to the Federation, not to the party that merged into it, under said name. I am actually glad you picked up on, though frankly I wish you would be more time-efficient and less exhausting with this stuff and just correct the text instead of tagging in the text. Dahn (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the source, considering I could find nowhere else a reference to a party under that name in that period. Furthermore, the former version of the article confused readers about the PSU, which was indeed a party, but active 1933-1938 and without Moscovici among its ranks.

My attempt to make the article agree with the reference was swiftly reverted by... you. Petrescu is clear about Moscovici & Co only joining the right wingers in 1922, and not 1921. It would have been next to impossible for them to join in 1921, considering that the centrists were still divided about whether to submit to the communists or make their faction into a party (Iordachescu's faction initially declared they stood by the May Congress, Moscovici & other general strike-era leaders where still in prison and had no public position on the matter). As a matter of fact, even after Moscovici was released in early 1922 and published his pamphlet condemning both communists and the reformists which had left the party in early 1921, the centrists and communists in Iasi still ran on a common lists in the 1922 elections, and the ones in Bucharest organized a common May Day celebration. As I have no desire to get myself involved into an edit war, I have to go with the less "time-efficient" way... Anonimu (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As you will note, I have effectively reverted myself -- because I had re-reviewed the sources and noticed that you had a point about some of the details, though by no means not all. As for the former version and how it "confused readers", you will note that the text goes on to detail the existence of that 1930s party under that name; if those two parties were indeed synonymous, this is a confusing fact from the source, not a confusing interpretation from yours truly. If you have more detail on this that you source from any RS, and not just from your proclamations, feel free to add to the text. Dahn (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

OR on the motives of Flueras

We have:

• Sources:
  • Petrescu: "[The delegation,] [w]on to the revolutionary cause, (with the exception of Flueras) [...] promised Moscow to affiliate the party with the 3rd International"
  • Neagoe: "Ion Flueras' bad experiences on the occasion of the trip to Moscow made by the delegation sent to establish contacts with the leaders of the Communist International was a decisive factor in the SD rejection of subordination to the [C]omintern".
• Facts (easily sourceable):
  • Comintern leaders repeatedly refused to meet Flueras
  • The Comintern ordered the PS to expel Flueras and friends as a prerequisite for the party's affiliation to the International
• Article:
  • "Ioan Flueraș [...] had visited Russia and denounced communism as he had experienced it there"

It's obvious that the our text is a non-sequitur, constituting an original opinion of the editor not present in any of the given sources. Anonimu (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, Petrescu notes that Flueraș was not won over by the idea of communism. Evidently, Neagoe makes it even more explicit by pointing out "bad experiences". The text I replaced misrepresented these two sources by whitewashing their claim as "a dispute" ("he had become involved in a dispute with the Comintern leadership") -- this qualifies as an equivocation, and is in fact itself OR, because nothing whatsoever similar is mentioned in either of those two sources. Between his many accusations and vague claims, Anonimu adds his own spin. Dahn (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

That you have "other" sources stating otherwise is of no interest to me at the moment. The fact is that these sources say this, and not what you contrived to make them say. If need be, look up non sequitur. Dahn (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And lastly, there is not even a contradiction between a "bad experience of communism" and being an elected delegate being blocked out/expelled by the Comintern. This qualifies as an experience of the authoritarian and aggressive behavior of communist officials. It also does not qualify as "a dispute" (per your whitewashing), since Flueraș would simply have been unable to have his say on any matter. I hope we're done here. Dahn (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, removing a tag during an ongoing discussion is an aggressive behaviour that promotes edit warring and discourages consensus-building.

Secondly, there's no logical relation between what sources say and what the article says, hence the non-sequitur. My rewording was an attempt to salvage the text while still providing some context to the reader (which the sources, for whatever reason, do not). Your new wording is equally bad: there's no indication in the sources that Flueras ever "experienced communism" (which would have been impossible, with the Soviet Union never having claimed to have implemented communism).

Thirdly, the context of the decision taken by Flueras and friends is well established, and we will never know whether he would have supported the communists had the Comintern not expelled him from the party. I however consider that such info is already provided in the linked article on Flueras, and there's no reason to clutter the article on Moscovici.Anonimu (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your latest comment: It's your right to have strong political opinions, as long as they don't interfere with your editing. In this case, they apparently did, which is a pity.Anonimu (talk) 22:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a tag ad nauseam is what's really questionable here. Particularly since my edits also addressed your objections by quoting the sources closely.

"there's no logical relation between what sources say and what the article says" No, the only illogical connection is between what the sources say and what you claim they say. Of course there is indication in the sources that he experienced communism: he was in Moscow, where communism was happening, was not won over by it (says Petrescu), had "bad experiences" (says Neagoe).

"we will never know whether he would have supported the communists had the Comintern not expelled him from the party." This is you contradicting the sources, which at the very least claim to know why he was opposed to the Comintern. Neither mentions a "dispute" as the cause of Flueraș's opposition to the affiliation (as you claimed they did). In fact, neither so far as mentions an actual dispute.

The only "strong" political opinions that seem to interfere here are yours -- I am generally an anticommunist (a quite mellow one, at it), but so is the bulk of this civilized world. In your case, it seems that the sources' refusal to credit Comintern propaganda as fact is what is driving you to manipulate the citations. But what I really need you to follow here is not my alleged opinions, but my explanation of a fact: someone being expelled from an elected delegation by the sheer arbitrariness of the Comintern does constitute a "bad memory of communism". It is not the fact on which our text hinges (the sources themselves spell out that he had said "bad experience", and that is frankly all the text would need), but it is a fact which would tone down even your most advanced speculation about Flueraș's resentments. Again, I hope we're done here. Dahn (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And no, I won't let this canard slide, not least of all because it indicates what political agenda is being disruptive here: "which would have been impossible, with the Soviet Union never having claimed to have implemented communism". That tired neocommunist distraction is, well, tired. For one, the definition of communism, as used by the majority of sources in this very article, and by Moscovici himself, covers "the politics of communism", what even other Marxists called "real socialism". That definition is also acknowledged in own very own article on communism, and the exact terminology for that "to be implemented" crap is under stateless communism and world communism. Also, factually speaking, the claim about Russia "never having claimed to have implemented communism", which implies that "communism" was used there as well to designate only some social order of the distant future, is quite easily debunked: Russia had implemented, at the very least, war communism, and the Russians had had to live with it.

I'm stating the above in the hope that I won't have to deal with this nonsense claim in future debates on any topic. When you feel the urge to present me with this sophistry, just remember that I replied here, and consider that "theoretical aspect" of the debate closed.

But should you insist on this point, we'll call it "experience of Leninism", even though this would drift from the wording in Petrescu. Dahn (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a forum. Consequently I have no desire to enter into political debates with you, no matter how strong you feel about your opinions. The facts are simple: neither Petrescu nor Neagoe claim Flueras ever "experienced communism" (or Leninism or any other ism). The text is completely your original conclusion, and, no matter whether such conclusion is correct or not (it is not, BTW), it has no place in the article as it misrepresents the sources (which is worse than having no sources at all).

Furthermore, I take offence at your accusation that I am driven by "Comintern propaganda" (why would I support an organization which disappeared more than half a century ago and that nobody wants to recreate?). Please be civil and discuss content not editors (preferably based on what sources actually say, not on what you think they would have said had the authors known you would write this article), otherwise I will be forced to request administrator intervention.Anonimu (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

1) "Not a forum". Precisely. This is why that counts as the last time I am discussing your forum-like claim that the Soviet Union never claimed to have established communism etc.

2) That is what the sources say, a fact that is backed up by your own translation. They do not say it was "a dispute", but they both do mention his disappointment/disillusionment. This provides context and contour.

3) I haven't accused you of being driven by Comintern propaganda, you will note, but I simply argued that you take Comintern claims at face value. What you do or do not recreate in your spare time is not and has not been the subject of my interest. I am not even going to begin to pay attention to that canard where you put words in my mouth and then cite them as incivility -- except to note that you're attempting to do the same with the sources (accusing me of misrepresenting them while you yourself misrepresent them). Dahn (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're the one pushing for political discussion, even after I have made my opinion on the matter clear. For the hundredth time, sources say nothing about Flueras having experienced communism: Petrescu says he was not won over by the revolutionary cause, while Neagoe says he had bad experiences (which could mean anything: he was down with a bad cold. his love interests remained unreciprocated, or indeed the Comintern refused to receive him and instructed his companions to expel him from the party). If you really want this article to provide a full account of Flueras's experience in Moscow, you could simply lift the relevant passage from the article about that person (i.e. the one which you wrote some five ago), and I could help you by providing further details. It would indeed clutter this article, but, considering your failure to follow current sources, I see no other solution. Regarding incivility, consider you have been warned, and, in case it continues, I'll refer directly to the relevant fora.Anonimu (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Some material

This may or may not be useful, here or elsewhere:

"După cum este cunoscut, în vara anului 1920, o delegaţie de socialişti români alcătuită din Gh. Cristescu, C. Popovici, E. Rozvan, I. Flueraş, Al. Dobrogeanu-Gherea şi D. Fabian, a efectuat o vizită în Rusia Sovietică unde a purtat discuţii cu conducători ai Statului Sovietic şi cu membri ai Comitetului Executiv al Internaţionalei Comuniste. înainte de plecarea din ţară, unii membri ai delegaţiei au fost solicitaţi de reprezentanţi ai guvernului român de a se interesa la autorităţile sovietice despre tezaurul naţional aflat la Moscova şi situaţia prizonierilor români din Rusia. Socialiştii români au purtat discuţii la Moscova cu reprezentanţi ai Internaţionalei Comuniste, iar la Harkov cu Cristian Racovski, pe atunci comisar al poporului pentru Ucraina. Discuţiile, după o fază constructivă au luat un curs nefavorabil, ceea ce a condus la întreruperea lor şi părăsirea Rusiei Sovietice de către Ion Flueraş. Reprezentanţii Cominternului au acuzat pe socialiştii români că au sprijinit procesul desăvîrşirii unităţii naţional-statale, calificîndu-l drept „anexare" de teritorii „străine".

Ei au formulat, de asemenea, aspre reproşuri, îndeosebi socialiştilor transilvăneni, pentru susţinerea operei de consolidare a statului român unitar, interpretîndu-le prezenţa în Marele sfat naţional, constituit la Alba Iuliâ, şi în Consiliul dirigent din Transilvania, drept „colaborare" cu burghezia şi abdicare de la principiile luptei de clasă. În legătură cu acest aspect, Buharin, reprezentant al conducerii Cominternului, care a purtat discuţii cu delegaţia socialiştilor români, afirma următoarele în şedinţa din 24 noiembrie 1920 : „Am avut la şedinţa precedentă în mijlocul nostru delegaţia română, şi printre reprezentanţi erau şi cei din Transilvania. Le-am pus diferite întrebări şi printre altele şi asupra motivelor care i-au îndemnat să ia parte la guvern. Astăzi am primit de la d-nul Flueraş o declaraţie, în care nu numai că nu se căieşte de felul său de acţiune, ci aduce motive cu totul scandaloase pentru acest fel de acţiune. Noi ştim că felul de acţiune a d-lui Flueraş este fără ruşine şi de aceea propunem că d. Flueraş are a părăsi sala (adică şedinţa)". În replică, Gh. Cristescu, C. Popovici, I. Flueraş au arătat că socialiştii români au sprijinit întotdeauna lupta poporului român pentru unitate naţională şi independenţă, în concepţia lor, ca şi în viziunea întregii noastre mişcări muncitoreşti, unitatea naţional-statală realizată în 1918 reprezenta opera întregului popor care răspundea în cel mai înalt grad necesităţilor vitale ale dezvoltării sale libere şi independente." -- here, p.77

"[Flueraş] a făcut parte din delegaţia socialiştilor români care în 1920 a fost la Moscova spre a discuta problema afilierii la Comintern; datorită opoziţiei manifestată în cursul convorbirilor cu diverşii reprezentanţi ai Cominternului, autorităţile bolşevice l-au expulzat din Rusia Sovietică." -- here, p.46

Care should be taken when using sources during this period: in this case "strong reproaches for their support of the consolidation of the Romanian unitary state" is just a contrived way of saying that the Comintern accused Flueras and co. of failing to support the Hungarian Revolution and siding with the Romanian capitalist government in its suppression. While that indeed resulted in the "consolidation of the Romanian unitary state" ruled by a bourgeois class, such account portrays the Comintern as holding a grudge against the "national unity of Romanians", instead of presenting its ideologically coherent position of supporting the world revolution and condemning SDs who had helped suppress the various failed attempts at revolution across Europe.Anonimu (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)