Talk:The Commanding Heights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled 1st Thread

I will not get involved with the biased opinions in this article other than to suggest at least CITING some of these assertions. I mean, c'mon, 2 references?

Dmjanssen (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3/4 of the Tiger economies: (South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore) are located in East Asia, not South East Asia. Corrected. Intranetusa (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As is my habit, I have expanded the stub of a book-related page into an entire article.

I have no desire to get involved in the whole capitalism/communism, pro/anti globalization pissing contest, and have asked that readers go to other articles to read/post on that topic. If there is a proper page for ideologues to visit, by all means, provide that link, please. --L. 15:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what the nature of the capitalism/communism pissing contest might be but one should not assume that it is only communists or socialists who disagree with the theories put forth in the book and documentary. --137.226.115.196 17:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The place to discuss the issues here are on the pages on "colonialism" or "US militarism," not this article itself.

2. You are providing an excellent example of the "pissing contest" in the severly loaded language you use.

3. You add passages that indicate you have not bothered actually reading the book through (i.e., the claim that they never bother discussing the crimes that occur in Chile).

I'd go on, but as far as I (and Wikipedia) is concerned, individuals without accounts are non-entitites, especially ignorant and ideologically-biased ones. --L. 14:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

individuals without accounts are non-entitites You're undermining your credibility here. Why do it under a persistent name? 178.39.122.125 (talk) 10:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Please spare me the holier than thou attitude and let’s try to be civil about this matter. You know my bias, but yours is also plane to see from the article you have been policing, and I am merely trying to restore some balance to it. I did not for instance attempt to modify the explanation of the arguments made by the authors, but merely the critics, and given my bias, I might be more qualified to do so than you, since you don’t seem to have any idea why (or who) might disagree with the book, if I may say.

By all means attempt to correct anything you see as "severly loaded language" but you basically cut out everything that would explain the nature and substance of the dispute between the critics of the book and documentary. For instance, you characterize the disagreement as one of prior ideology rather than explain the actual argument made by the critics. The left and even some libertarians and anarchists disagree with the thesis put forward in both book and documentary (I was in fact referring to the documentary, so stand corrected there) precisely because it is seen by them to omit (rather than dispute) facts of history, most of which are not in dispute by left or right (i.e. that those who claimed responsibility for 9/11 did not make any claim that they opposed "capitalism" or "globalism", but in fact said they were responding to American foreign policy and military action). I did not site this merely to piss or rehash the issue, but to demonstrate how the particular historical POV of the authors leads them to their thesis, a thesis that their critics, having a substantively different POV, therefore do not agree with. I did not try to prove which POV was right, and I clearly characterized the arguments made by "critics" as such.

I will rewrite my additions to identify where they refer to the documentary and where they refer to the book and/or general argument put forth by the authors, but I will first offer you the chance to put back some semblance of what I added with whatever modifications to perceived bias you deem appropriate. However, as is, I think your present edit is biased since it seems to suggest that criticisms of Commanding Heights are merely groundless and partisan, and that itself is ignorant and ideologically-biased.

--137.226.115.196 18:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

PS - Now I have an account. I feel so special. --Betamod 18:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to summarize the above:

1. You admit having a bias.

2. I hold I have no bias.

This entire article, including the criticism section, was entirely created by me after review of both editions of this book, as well as the documentary version. Any accusations of bias against me is unfounded.

However, since you admit openly to bias, all future edits by you may be freely ignored and deleted. Wikipedia Policy: NPOV. --L. 20:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Interesting that you mention the NPOV policy:

1-“The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them".”

This is what I was attempting to do by being clear that the critical views presented were just that, disagreements by critics with the arguments made in the book and its view on history.

2- “Bias need not be conscious. For example, beginners in a field often fail to realize that what sounds like common sense is actually biased in favor of one particular view.”

This is what I claim you are doing by not presenting (and now suppressing) the basic substance of why critics disagree with the authors of CH. You obviously believe that you are perfect and above all criticism but most reasonable people realize that they may be biased and so are open to discussion and negotiation. I do not claim to be perfect, but I am trying to present what I know of both the documentary, which aired in Canada, and for which there was significant press coverage all of which I watched and read. If you force me too, I will even dig up the specific sources and site them, which I think would be excessive, but I guess I will have to.

One example of your bias is that you label those who criticize the CH as communists and socialists. Do you really know that to be true? It seems more like a groundless assertion. Yet even pro free market capitalists and liberal press sources have been critical of CH. You seem to be suggesting that the reason for the disagreement due to ideological prejudice rather than rational analysis, or historical point of view. Maybe you did not intend it, but this choice of words shows your bias.

Ideology can not be transcended by pretending that one has none. Everyone has a limited POV and it is only through having our limited points of view challenged by others that we might get out from under our prejudices. Claims of infallible unbiasedness are a sure sign that precisely the opposite is true.

However, I remain open to being proven wrong.

Show me where I was asserting a give viewpoint in what I wrote. If you can’t then stop sitting on this page and let's come to a compromise. This article is not your private property.

--Betamod 23:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that amusing remark - see my talk page for how I fit it into the arguments.

If you have not read both editions of the book and watched the documentary, and individuals such as yourself insert what are incorrect statements about what is in this book, it is indeed not only my right, but my duty, to "sit on this page" and watch it against vandalism. --L. 18:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what Betamod did either, it certainly wouldn't hurt if you at least clarified your reasoning a little bit more? Fephisto 04:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

L.'s vitriolic attacks on Betamod provide evidence that he/she does indeed have an agenda. Anyone of any intelligence who claims not to have a bias on the issues discussed in "Commanding Heights" is either fooling himself/herself or outright lying. As human beings we of course have biases. The trick is trying not to let those biases show through in a venture such as this. Dirkmanley 16:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If I were to write an unbiased article, I'm not sure I'd use this formulation: "Terrorists who oppose some effects of globalization attacked the World Trade Center and The Pentagon on September 11, 2001." without having sources to back up my claims.

I would neither say that "Terrorists, given instruments to do so through globalization, attacked the World Trade Centre" - but this sentence is just as correct. People who have a feeling of suppression has been given the posibility to reach those they believe are their suppressors through the ill-defined concept of globalization.

My claim is that the sentence in use in this article is biased in that it (within the context given by the article) implies that islamist terrorists and the anti-globalization-movement share common goals. Wether you support the anti-globalization-movement or islamism or not - this point stands out from the article as ridiculous.

Controversy

The economies in Asia "collapsed?" They don't exist anymore?

The stock market went down, proving communism was right all along?

The Sept 11 attacks prove that socialists were right?

The anti-freedom movement is growing in strength, so that proves the authors were wrong? Didn't this book warn about this very thing?

I notice the article uses the word "roundly criticized" instead of just "criticised" - by who?SecretaryNotSure 16:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Effectively the article is full of non-neutral points of view... e.g. adjectives that are un-Wikipedia like. I skimmed through it very quickly,and made 8 changes. I corrected one statement that amazingly portrayed Friedman as in favour of an activist monetary policy! There is doubtless more work to be done. cckkab 18:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

The tagged sections effectively make the article a forum for a political discussion as none of the content apparently can be shown to be directly related to the subject, either the book or the DVD. Therefore I've moved them here and performed other minor cleanup on the article. For the same reason I removed the various links to general articles about various national economies which were unrelated to this subject. I would have put the countries in lex order but I presume the order given is that of the video. The book doesn't have that organization but I imagine the video does. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

The book's espousal of capitalism put forward by neoliberal economists has been contested by a variety of critics, most notably Marxists, socialists, and the anti-globalization movement.

Because the book examines many countries after the end of World War II, critics also contend that the authors ignore the history of colonialism, as many of the countries they examine only became independent after the war.

Also, the authors do not fully examine Cold War politics, particularly the use of military force and the suppression of popular democratic, socialist, and nationalist movements in the developing world. One oft-cited example - they talk about the fall of Chilean leader Salvador Allende, as well as the subsequent rise of Augusto Pinochet, but omit any discussion of American pressure and clandestine activities in the military coup that toppled Allende.

Published in 1998, Yergin and Stanislaw have been criticized for failing to foresee and take account of problems that were in the making at the time. Some examples of things the book missed because of its date of publication:

• The so-called "Tiger Economies" of East Asia performed poorly within a year after the book's publication - the "Asian financial crisis". These economies, which embraced free markets, are used by the authors as examples of globalization's benefits.

• The world and U.S. economy went into a recession. In particular, the U.S. stock market suffered an extended period of marked decline.

• The anti-globalization movement appeared, most notably during the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, Washington in 1999.

• The attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

The largest criticism leveled against the book is that it failed to foresee the massive corporate scandals that began a few years later. The authors quoted Kenneth Lay and cast him as an entrepreneur who was victimized by India's governmental regulations; not long afterwards, Lay's company Enron collapsed, and Lay was indicted on fraud charges. Because of this gaffe, when the documentary version of the book came out, critics began to attack it as nothing more than corporate propaganda. Many viewers of the PBS documentary film version posted their criticisms on the program's website (see link below).

Supporters of the book argue that the authors should not be blamed for not being able to foresee future events.

In the new edition of the book the authors take note of the attacks and criticisms, but pose them as an irrational reaction to globalization, and therefore do not modify their fundamental thesis.

Current events

The book's economic policy prescriptions are subject to debate as different people, including economists, contend whether or not the current crisis is or is not rooted in them.

The current financial crisis has led to a swing back to Keynesianism as the ideas of Milton Friedman, derided by some as Market fundamentalism are once again held in serious doubt. Defenders of Chicago School of economics tends to submit that the economic slumps following the deregulation and tax cuts for the well-off following the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were caused by other policies, or assert that the policies they support were not to implemented fully.

things and stuff

1. The notion that "commanding heights" is a Leninist "shibboleth" is silly. "Commanding heights" refers to the idea of nationalizing vital large-scale industries; an idea common to all socialists and many social democrats. Lenin didn't just want the commanding heights; he wanted everything.

The reference used to bolster the "shibboleth" idea is totally inadequate. It consists of a Maoist speech referring to "commanding heights of the party and the army," not the economy. Even if it did refer to the economy, that is not enough to call something a "Leninist shibboleth." You would need a credible reference that actually says, "'Commanding heights' is a Leninst shibboleth," or at least something equivalent like "is classic Leninist jargon."

2. There is no reason to remove the specific funding of this documentary to the references section where it is less visible. The reader may decide whether the funding of a documentary on international capitalism by large international capitalists is relevant or not. EvanHarper (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To your first point, it probably isn't right to call "commanding heights" a Leninist shibboleth . But I do think it should mention that the term commanding heights was coined in a speech by Lenin to describe what is perceived to be the vital parts of an economy. It says so in the book itself (somewhere in the begin, can't remember where exactly, don't have a copy with me right now), which should be reference enough to prove it. It is also mentioned in this review of the book under the section "National Champions". For this article to say the term either wasn't coined by Lenin or that it did not refer to the economy, I think it would need a reference which says so.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, "commanding heights" refers to the economy, but the specific reference given was a use of the phrase "commanding heights" in an non-economic context.

The dlc.org reference links makes it quite clear that the phrase is not a Leninist shibboleth: "Lenin coined the phrase "the commanding heights" in 1922 ... Lenin had no idea his battle cry would be appropriated by the British Fabians (socialists who denied the need for violent class struggle) and later transmitted around the world to developing nations. The phrase eventually came to encompass the government policy of promoting home-grown 'national champions'"

As for Lenin coining the phrase, there are quite a few quotes floating around out there of dubious provenance attributed to him. "Debauch the currency," "Give me a child," anything ever attributed to him about gun control, etc. So I am a little uncomfortable attributing this directly to Lenin, even if the book and reviews of the book do so. It would be better to say that the book attributes this quote to Lenin. Unless of course we have a really credible source (Trotsky, <A HREF=http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/ssf/sf05.htm>writing 15 years later,</A> does describe Lenin's NEP as aimed at "the so-called 'commanding heights', but doesn't actually say that Lenin coined this phrase or even used it.) EvanHarper (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how the book is not a credible source. I still think there would have to be some sort of reference for this article to express any doubt that the phrase "commanding heights" was coined by Lenin, used for refer to vital parts of the economy. Right now it seems bit like original research to claim that the phrase might not have been created by Lenin.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The positive claim, "the phrase might not have been created by Lenin," is my original research. So what! I am not suggesting that the article actually say, "the phrase might not have been created by Lenin." I am suggesting that the article avoid saying "the phrase was created by Lenin" in the absence of serious sources to demonstrate that this is actually true.

"Commanding heights" seems to have been a very familiar metaphor in the late 19th / early 20th century, used in all sorts of contexts. The first reference I have found to "commanding heights" as an economic policy metaphor is not Lenin but Trotsky, and more than a decade after Lenin supposedly said it. Trotsky uses the phrase to summarize what Lenin is described to have said in 1922, but does not specifically attribute it to Lenin. Then other literature related to Communism picks up the phrase, occasionally attributing it to Lenin, occasionally giving vague attributions, occasionally giving no attribution at all, but never, that I can see, giving an attribution to Lenin and an explicit citation ("in 1922 Lenin told a meeting of the economic committee of the CPSU, "commanding heights..."). Heck,one book from 1974 even says it was Aneurin Bevan who coined the phrase! Then, in the 1990s, it suddenly becomes popular for editorial writers and the like to talk about how Lenin, the bogeyman, went after the "commanding heights," and how the fact that some social democrats and liberals also like the idea of "commanding heights," they are in some sense the same as Leninists. (This is where the "Commanding Heights" PBS series fits in.) And then eventually in 2009 you get to things like this, where we are told that Lenin coined the phrase and this proves that liberals are inspired by the ghost of Lenin (cue horror-movie soundtrack violins.)

Of course, maybe Lenin really did coin the phrase. But I want a reliable source that actually says, "commanding heights of the economy" was coined by Lenin who said it at such-and-such a place and time. Absent that, I would suggest something like "A phrase commonly attributed to Lenin" or "A phrase which the documentary credits to Lenin." Otherwise, Wikipedia may be just spreading a popular myth. EvanHarper (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You still have not explained what makes the book, and the review thereof, unreliable sources. I think the book states pretty clearly that the phrase was coined by Lenin, in a speech about his proposed "New Economic Policy" at the Fourth Congress of the Communist International in November 1922, when it in its introduction says:

"The term (commanding heights) goes back three quarters of a century. In November 1922, half a decade after leading the Bolsheviks to victory, the already ailing Vladimir Illyich Lenin made his way to the platform of the Fourth Congress of the Communist International in St. Petersburg, then called Petrograd. It was his penultimate public appearance. The year before, amid economic breakdown and out of desperation, Lenin had initiated the New Economic Policy, permitting a resumption of small trade and private agriculture. Now, communist militants were attacking him for compromising with capitalism and selling out the revolution. Responding with his old acerbity and sarcasm, despite his physical enfeeblement, Lenin defended the program. Although the policy allowed markets to function, he declared, the state would control the "commanding heights," the most important elements of the economy. And that, Lenin assured any who doubted him, was what counted. All this was before collectivization, Stalinism, and the total eradication of private markets in the Soviet Union." (found an excerpt from the book on Amazon.com)

Yes, wikipedia might be spreading popular myths, indeed just about everything wikipedia says might be myths, but until there are references to support that they are myths, wikipedia will have to state them as facts.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the source you are quoting in fact does not say that Lenin coined the term "commanding heights." It does not even explicitly say that he used the term "commanding heights." It says that he "declared [that] the state would control the 'commanding heights'." It doesn't say why the phrase "commanding heights" is in quotes, although it implies that the phrase was Lenin's.

Lenin's speech to the 4th Comintern is here. In the translation linked, the phrase "commanding heights" does not appear. There is one phrase that looks like it might reasonably be rendered, in another translation, as "commanding heights:"

The state capitalism that we have introduced in our country is of a special kind. It does not agree with the usual conception of state capitalism. We hold all the key positions. [em mine]

But, again, there is no reason to believe that Lenin actually coined "key positions" or "commanding heights" -- it is a dead metaphor of a very familiar sort. It seems that Lenin's usage of this metaphor became, more than half a century later, a convenient framing device for a particular genre of neoliberal pop-economics advocacy. From there the meme metastasizied into an extreme form, which claims that Lenin actually coined the phrase "commanding heights," that the idea of "commanding heights" is specifically Leninist, and that the persistence of "commanding heights" thinking among Western social-democrats and left-liberals is evidence of their underlying Leninist sympathies.

It really looks to me like a political calumny rather than a historical fact, and I just cannot agree with Wikipedia's presentation of it as a fact. Again, I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should actually disavow the idea that "commanding heights" is Lenin's phrase. I am suggesting that Wikipedia should explicitly attribute the idea that "commanding heights" is Lenin's phrase to the sources which claim that commanding heights is Lenin's phrase.

Right now, the only source we have which actually claims, "Lenin coined the phrase 'the commanding heights' in 1922," is a book review, published by an advocacy organization, which does not document its claim. This is not really enough, in my opinion. EvanHarper (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. As most of the other mentions of the origins of the phrase "commanding heights" seem to have this book as its main source (not a whole lot people seems to have looked into the origins of this phrase), let's have it say that the authors attributes the origin of the phrase to a speech by Lenin. TheFreeloader (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay! I'm glad we got that settled :-) EvanHarper (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As it appears to be about changes I made to the lede will review this thread as time permits and make comment if appropriate. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Went as far into the above as I could stand. For the historical record, I don't engage in dialog with users with nicks like "TheFreeloader" as such are self-evident indications of a wiki troll and/or the particular worldview espoused/implicit. Sorry for well meaning others who get dragged into such but you know that's the nature of a public wiki. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, what are you on about?? EvanHarper (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, are you related to the PM? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of my bacon frying. EvanHarper (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In any case: my last edit of the lede. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, don't get it, what are you talking about? If you are asking where my username comes from, then it comes from Miles Davis's Freddie Freeloader.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged, but I don't think Miles originated the name. Anyway as far as I got into it before turning away in disgust, the above seemed to be about the reason I noted for putting the fact check, now removed next to the attribution to Lenin, for which I gave a source but noted in the edit summary that the phrase didn't appear in English translation at marxists.org. That it has become a shibboleth of political economy (and Marxist political economy in particular for which I gave a ref) is self evident in the current article title. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem: Namespace pollution in the redirect

"Commanding Heights" is a term derived from socialist/marxist theory/rhetoric and the redirect here isn't currently putting that in the correct historical context. I believe I had made edits here to address that and they seem to have been lost. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Vague sentence on Bolivia

I am having trouble understanding what this means: "Bolivia was hit with hyperinflation as well. During the 1980s, economist Jeffrey Sachs was sent as a consultant and new President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada reined in inflation in the 1990s by severely cutting government spending. While Bolivia remained a very poor country, the authors argue that it is better off now because its inflation was curtailed. They also argue that Bolivia's example vindicates the bad reputation that free-market economics acquired in Chile as Bolivia's reforms came after a democratic election." Specifically the last sentence. I can sort of guess at what the sentence means, but there's got to be a better way to phrase it. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I changed "vindicate" to "expunge". I don't think the word "vindicate" was used correctly. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)