Talk:Raya Dunayevskaya

Untitled

This page seems to need serious work. I am not a News and Letters member but this page is seriously incomplete. I tried to fix it by adding the reference to News & Letters which didn't even exist but there is much much more that someone needs to write about the latter half of Raya's life.Rmalhotr 03:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 03:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

To Rmalhotr, who wrote the above: Agreed. I've begun on it and will over time continue to add to it, if no one else beats me to it. Franklin Dmitryev 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Note on the intro: another editor felt that the intro should state that Dunayevskaya was a leader of the SWP. I'm not aware of a source for that, if it means the elected leadership. If it means leadership of an opposition faction, then it should be stated that way. In any case, it seems to me that the reason to have an entry on her in any encyclopedia is her original contributions, not her membership in the SWP from 1938-1940 and 1947-1951. I don't see the logic in putting that on a level with her original contributions, and with founding and leading her own organization for 32 years. The "Wikipedia:Notability (people)" article gives the following criterion for inclusion of a biography in Wikipedia: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" This is the case for her founding of the philosophy of Marxist-Humanism. It would be a bit implausible to argue that her association with the SWP meets this criterion. If anyone disagrees, I suggest a bit of discussion on this talk page before putting something like that into the article's intro. Franklin Dmitryev 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of reference?

The (1) reference seems to be confused: what is its meaning? It links to an article from 2003 about Dunayevskaya's perspective on Luxemburg but it is not clear what relevance that has to the former's Jewish origins. This editor does not understand why the reference was added or how it relates to the article. Watchdog07 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV clean-up and minor touch-ups

I made some WP:NPOV edits, and minor touch-ups. --Horse Badorties 03:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted a number of said edits that can hardly be considered NPOV. Removing factual statements about her views because you disagree with those views strikes me as the opposite of NPOV. For example, Horse B removed the following indisputably true statements:

• She opposed any notion that workers should be asked to defend this "workers' state" allied with Nazi Germany in a world war.

• The newspaper is notable for the significant coverage it devotes to women's struggles, the liberation of workers, women, people of colour, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual rights and the disability rights movement, and not separating that coverage from philosophical and theoretical articles.

• Among those who argued for separating Marx into two distinct thinkers--one young and idealistic and the other mature and scientific--were Soviet Union theoreticians. Dunayevskaya believed the Communist state turned Marxism into its opposite--the totalitarian theory and practice of Stalinist and post-Stalin USSR--and signaled a new stage of world state-capitalism.

Horse B further changed Dunayevskaya's "analysis" of Russia as state-capitalist to a "declaration," even though the reference is to a detailed analysis published in a major journal of the Fourth International, and oddly changed her view of state-capitalism as a "world stage" to "paradigm," a word she did not particularly favor.

Also, the links to Marxist Humanism and News and Letters Committees were changed not to be links. In the latter case, there is as yet no Wikipedia entry, but the solution to such a case is to create one, not to eliminate the link.

Overall this appears to be imposing a POV, whether intentionally or not. Franklin Dmitryev 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am reverting my WP:NPOV version, and will explain some of my edits.

1. No one would have been expelled from the CP for being a "Troyskyist". The charge would have been "Trotskyite". I am just correcting the historical record here.

2. "...for wanting to hear both sides of the argument" is not cited, and is speculation.

3. "Without getting permission from the U.S. Trotskyist organization..." Uncited speculation.

4. "She opposed any notion..." Uncited speculation.

5. I am reverting "declaration". Grammatically, it's incorrect to say that her study led to her analysis. An analysis is a detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation.

6. "Paradigm" is a better descriptor than "world stage". It just is.

7. "The newspaper is notable for..." is a conclusion based on no evidence. I will re-phrase it, but leave it otherwise.

Finally, please familiarize yourself with WP:AGF. --Horse Badorties 23:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you don't know something does not make it "speculation." If you think something should be cited, put a citation tag. That's not what you did in the cases of certain statements that explain Dunayevskaya's views in important ways. I am familiar with assuming good faith, and I doubt you can find any violation of that in what I wrote. Perhaps assuming good faith would keep you from calling statements "speculation" when you don't know whether they are speculation or not.

I will give you citations and you can add them to the article if you want. But, really, to cite every statement in any wikipedia entry would be unnecessarily cumbersome. It's certainly possible to select, wittingly or not, those statements you most dislike and single them out for "needing citation," but that wouldn't necessarily lead to a better article. As for your points above:

1. You're probably right. (Got a citation?) Let's leave it at that.

2. Citation: Women Building Chicago (see references under "Moon, Terry"), p. 239.

3. Citation: Women Building Chicago, p. 239.

4. Citation: Women Building Chicago, p. 239.

5. You are mistaken to think that a study cannot lead to an analysis. For example, in Webster's I find definition #2 for "analysis" is "a statement of the results of this process." Besides which, changing it to "declaration" changes the character of what is being stated. Dunayevskaya was the first to work out a theory of USSR as state-capitalist based on official USSR statistics and Marx's economic categories. Change the word to "theory" if you like, but changing the word to "declaration" makes it sound as if it could be a one-sentence statement. I assure you it was not. This change is a bad idea.

6. It is odd to say that "Paradigm" is a better descriptor than "world stage." We are not talking about your theory, we are talking about the theory of someone who never called this a "paradigm." In fact, the word does not make sense in the sentence, since it means "a pattern, example, or model." If that's what you think she was talking about, you must not be familiar with what her theory is.

7. I think your latest change here is a definite improvement.

You did not mention this, but you once again changed links to not be links. Why?

You did not explain why you again deleted the third passage I mentioned above. In case you were concerned about citations, remember that it is part of a section discussing Marxism and Freedom. One could add page references to every sentence of that section, but I'm not convinced that would be helpful. Franklin Dmitryev 23:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason I removed these passages instead of requesting citation is that there were so many passages that needed citations, that the tag {{Unreferenced}} at the top of the article would have been more appropriate. This tag, however, contains the text "Any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time." So I removed the text, making sure to explain it on this talk page. However, since you know which page these views come from, perhaps you could cite them properly? (You might have already done this.)

I agree that citing everything would be cumbersome, but the passages that needed citation, that I deleted, were also superfluous. I honestly do not believe the article suffers in any way by my edits mentioned in points 2, 3, and 4 above.

Regarding "Analysis/Declaration", your second definition notwithstanding, I don't think using the word "declaration" makes it sound as if she uttered one sentence about the USSR being "state capitalist", especially since it follows "Her simultaneous study of the Russian economy and of Marx's early writings ... led to..." I don't think anyone would think she just woke up one day and uttered those words. That said, it doesn't bother me so badly that I'm going to spend any more time on it now. I just think "analysis" following "study" is redundant and circular.

Regarding "Paradigm": "World stage" doesn't really describe anything. It makes me think of Shakespeare. But once again, I'm not going to argue too vigorously for this. I'll come back to it later and see if it strikes me the same way then.

Regarding changing the links to be not links, that was an oversight. When I reverted the article, I didn't keep the internal link markings.

Finally, regarding [[WP:AGF]], I wrote that in response to your remark "Removing factual statements about her views because you disagree with those views...". That's all. --Horse Badorties 01:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A couple more clean-ups tonight.

"...thrown down a flight of stairs" is POV editorializing. I think the sentence reads better now, though I still think it could be fleshed out a bit more.

Same thing for "Without getting permission from the U.S. Trotskyist organization..." POV editorializing. It just comes out of nowhere. Why is it important? From her POV, not the U.S. Troyskyist organization's POV? --Horse Badorties 03:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I managed to do this, but my two edits appear under an IP address instead of my name. --Horse Badorties 03:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are calling "POV editorializing" is facts. You can find documentation of both in the citations I added. How is a fact "POV"? How is it "editorializing"? If you have a question about why something is important, why not ask first, before deleting it? I think the bit about the party's permission is important because it says something about her character. There are some people who do whatever their party tells them, and some who are more independent-thinking. Also, without that, some people had assumed she was sent to Trotsky by the party, or that Trotsky requisitioned her. I'm puzzled because you've now given three different reasons for deleting that clause. To tell the truth, none of the reasons seem to me sufficient reason to delete that. --Franklin Dmitryev 20:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You have save me the time of having to explain myself by answering your own question. You ask: How is it editorializing? Then you answer: "I think the bit about the party's permission is important because it says something about her character." That is how it is editorializing. The same holds for being "thrown down a flight of stairs."

I have not given different reasons for deleting these. Speculation and editorializing are pretty much the same. --Horse Badorties 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. These are facts, not editorializing. The article does not say, "This is what it says about her character." It gives the facts and lets readers draw their own conclusions. In addition, how does explaining the importance of one fact bear on another fact whose importance neither of us addressed? Speculation and editorializing are obviously not the same. First you said "NPOV" without ever to this day having explained what is POV about providing these facts. Second you called it uncited speculation--and that is clearly wrong because reporting recorded facts is not speculation; I have added the citations. Third you called it "POV editorializing," which is just bullshit. Please do not arbitrarily delete these facts again. --Franklin Dmitryev 12:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the editors of the encyclopedia Women Building Chicago did not find these facts to be "editorializing," which they would not have allowed. Franklin Dmitryev 12:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is very vague, and therefore relies on editorializing to fill in the gaps. --Horse Badorties 13:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, stating facts is not editorializing. Calling something "editorializing" over and over without ever giving a reason does not make it so. Since you can't give a valid reason to delete the statements of fact, why don't you just let them be? Franklin Dmitryev 16:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If the two lines in dispute do appear in the source, then I cannot see the problem in including them in this article. It is possible that the source editorialises, but extracting the facts from it should minimise the danger from this. If Horse Badorties is arguing that the lines affect the balance of the article, then we should be looking for further sources and details, rather than removing what we have. Warofdreams talk 19:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Claiming something to be a "fact" does not make it not editorializing. Also, adding further citations do not add balance. --Horse Badorties 02:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a pretty reliable source for it. Unless you have evidence that it is untrue, that is closest thing we have to a fact. Adding further citations will add balance if there is reliable information out there on aspects of Dunayevskaya's life which are currently neglected. Of course, if there are no reliable sources, we can't include it. Warofdreams talk 11:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with WarofDreams. The arguments made against these statements are not based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline as far as I can see. These appear to be cited to reliable sources, and do not appear to be in dispute. They appear to be relevant to the article and nontrivial. There is no OR, NPOV etc violation claimed, and the word "editorializing" seems to be an inappropriate description for standard, entirely acceptable editing. So I reverted. John Z 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Dunayevskaya's biography in "The Encyclopedia of the American Left" (Buhle, Buhle, Georgakas, 1992)? The relevant section reads: "Expelled from the Communist Party's youth section in 1928, she turned to Trotskyism, for a time in the 1930s serving as Trotsky's secretary in Mexico." Note that there is no mention of stairs, nor is there any mention of "permission", neither sought nor acquired. Is this because they didn't know this information, or because they didn't feel it was encyclopedic to say "something about her character"?

Instead of trying to build a psychological profile of her, why not just allow actual facts to stand, and not embellish them with editorializing? --Horse Badorties 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

On the question Horse B raised: It is very likely that they did not know the information. It should not be hard to understand that an article in one encyclopedia may be better researched than one on the same subject in another encyclopedia. The fact that one person did not know a fact does not make stating that fact editorializing. The above logic seems to imply that no encyclopedia article should be allowed to state facts that haven't already been stated in all other encyclopedias. Franklin Dmitryev 21:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

We are in the useful position of being able to take several sources and extract information from all of them. A brief article in an encyclopedia may well be useful as a source, but as we are not limited by space constraints, we should aim to include all relevant, sourceable details. Could you perhaps explain what you mean by "editorializing", as this can be interpreted in several ways, and I cannot understand how it applies to the lines you dispute. In addition, please do not keep reverting to your preferred version, when the more detailed version is preferred by all other contributors to this talk page. Warofdreams talk 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. "The Encyclopedia of the American Left" had no space constraints. Regarding reverting, it is you who should stop, since one-more-than-half is neither "broad" nor "all except HB". I would also say that the version you refer to as yours is not more detailed, but more muddled. --Horse Badorties 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that the space constraints on Wikipedia are less stringent than those on a physical book. I'd be glad to back you up if I could make head or tail of why you oppose these statements so strenuously. Do you think they are false? What POV do you think they are pushing, to use wiki-ese? What is your POV? What is your objection exactly? Maybe read some wiki policies to help phrase it. Are you saying that they are too trivial? Then I wonder why they exercise you so, what is being read into them. It seems to me that the idea that biographical articles should be written so as to avoid "building a psychological profile" and "saying something about [the] character" of the subject is mighty peculiar. Why are these "facts" per se "editorializing" and say the "actual fact" that the person existed and supposedly wrote several books not? There are apparently reliable sources for each. What more can one ask? Did you know her personally and know these to be false? It's OR to put something in based on such knowledge, but not necessarily to take something out. John Z 10:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am finding HB's contributions increasingly difficult to understand. Please explain what you mean by "editorializing". If you won't explain, there is no chance of getting anyone to understand your point. Not one sentence in HB's last contribution is accurate. Printed works do have space constraints. A simple examination of the talk page will show that the more detailed version - which I never refered to as mine - is indeed preferred by all contributors to this talk page except HB, and 3:1 does broadly represent a consensus. Warofdreams talk 12:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this dispute (silently) for a few days and I agree with Warofdreams, et al.Radicalamy 16:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

News and Letters' International Contacts

I have not checked this in ages and am astonished at Franklin's work (as well as others). I have taken the liberty of fixing the spelling of my name in Franklin's very first comment above (I failed to sign my original comment so it's partly my fault). However, I wanted to alert folks here to the fact that the Italian language version of wikipedia has information on Raya Dunayevskaya in the entry on the Boridigst political leader, Damen. I don't know Italian but I am sure Franklin knows exactly what I am talking about. In my recollection, the book, 25 Years of Marxist-Humanism, has useful information, I think particularly about a 1958 international conference. Even if that is seen as too trivial, I think a broader comment about the segment of the left that N&L worked with internationally and that Raya directly influenced is warranted. Also perhaps more should be said about Hobgoblin if there really is a fully fledged British section now.

Rmalhotr 02:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

General Comments

Good job. Looks nice Dialectics. I like your contribution of adding an info box.

allna.lummus (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"in her childhood"

The edits made recently were undoubtedly well-intentioned, but I've reverted one bit because in fact Dunayevskaya did join the revolutionary movement in her childhood. No, it was not a dangling phrase. Franklin Dmitryev (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Black masses as vanguard

I hope we're not going to have an edit war about this. "Black masses as vanguard" was in fact a topic taken up in all of Dunayevskaya's books. If you are so unfamiliar with her writings that you think she wrote very little on this subject, then please recognize that you are not in a position to make judgments about this topic. Franklin Dmitryev (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian Marxism

I'm puzzled about the judgment that Dunayevskaya was not a libertarian Marxist, with the explanation, "Dunayevskaya was not a 'Libertarian Marxist' -- she disassociated herself from the ultra-left." This implies a rather narrow definition of what "Libertarian Marxism" encompasses. For instance, libcom.org includes her among people whose writings they include in their online library. And the wikipedia entry on Libertarian Marxism says this:

"Libertarian Marxism includes such currents as Luxemburgism, council communism, left communism, Socialisme ou Barbarie, the Johnson-Forest tendency, world socialism, Lettrism/Situationism and operaismo/autonomism, and New Left.[8] Libertarian Marxism has often had a strong influence on both post-left and social anarchists. Notable theorists of libertarian Marxism have included Anton Pannekoek, Raya Dunayevskaya, CLR James, Antonio Negri, Cornelius Castoriadis, Maurice Brinton, Guy Debord, Daniel Guérin, Ernesto Screpanti and Raoul Vaneigem." (The footnote is to [1].)

Seems that to be consistent one would have to delete all of that paragraph and much more in that article, as well as scrutinizing the entries on all the named Marxists to make sure they wouldn't be included. Or else one should accept that it is a rather broad category, not to be equated with "ultra-left." Can the anonymous IP address give us some better explanation, please?

Franklin Dmitryev (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)