User talk:DKalkin/Archive 1 (Nov 05 - Feb 06)

anti-war topics template / conscientious objector article[edit]

Please stop using the Conscientious Objector page for your personal politics. None of the links you cited as deleted had anything to do with Conscientious Objection, nor does the use of a peace symbol indicate conscientious objection. How do I know? Because I am a certified C.O. by the U.S. military.

The items you were blanking were NOT on the Conscientious objector page. You blanked the "anti-war topics" template, a template which shows up on a number of pages related to anti-war ideas or movements. This is why it does not show up in the edit box of the C.O. page itself, except as the phrase "anti-war topics" enclosed by brackets. When you blank it, you blank it on every page. It's fine not to know these things if you're new to Wikipedia, but please be careful.

If you think that the template should not be on the C.O. page, we can discuss that. I think it's relevant, though I did not put it on the page initially nor make the decision to include the conscientious objector as one of the links from the template itself. Your C.O. status gives you credibility on the subject, but you also need to give reasons if you want to persuade me. But if we decide it's unrelated, it should only be removed from that page, NOT blanked.

Note this has very little to do with my personal politics. I didn't make the anti-war template, and didn't contribute significantly to any of the articles on it except for the ANSWER one, and I am not a member or fan of ANSWER.

Finally, please sign your posts. Just inserting four tildes will automatically add your name and the date and time. (That one took me months to figure out, actually.) Kalkin 00:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transformation problem[edit]

Dear DKalkin, I'am sorry I only saw your enquiry just now and so did not reply earlier.

It seems to me that your statement of Sraffa's "assumptions" reveals a rather basic misunderstanding. As far as I know, it is a generally accepted fact among economists that Sraffa's work, being static, has formally nothing to do with the determination of prices in the historical or causal sense. It is just a set of (timeless) conditions that prices must satisfy at any given point of time to be the "natural" prices Smith and Ricardo were talking about. Looked at this way, there is clearly no question of either "fundamental givens" or "simultaneity" of things.

Nevertheless, it may well be that some non-expert author has "interpreted" (or reinvented) Sraffa in the dynamic way you say, and/or maintained that Marx's production prices are not basically the same things as Ricardo's natural prices, or whatever. These would be classic "tiny minority" points of view, rather like flat-earth theories,

Although the official Wiki policy on NPOV intimates that all such theories should be ignored, I would of course have no objection to their proper mention within the article. However, I just happen to have no personal knowledge of such extreme oddities, nor much interest in them, and so I'm clearly not the right person to do it. Yours Mario 15:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop the issue because I don't have time or knowledge to pursue it, although this response in turn seems to contain some misunderstandings of my request.

Zinn & anti-war template[edit]

Hi, I reverted the anti-war template at the top of the Zinn bio page because it is off-topic and does not specifically address the page topic, a biography. I have placed a similar discussion of this on the Zinn bio discussion page. Peace. skywriter 20:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I received your message. I don't know where the anti-war project is. Your note had no link to it. I don't think anyone would object to placing a link to anti-war pages on the pages of prominent anti-war activists but that is different from placement at the top of a biography page, which seems way out of line, especially because there is no direct link to Zinn activities in that template. The best link would be to a Zinn speech or appearance at the anti-war web pages. Otherwise, it faces the question of being off topic. Best wishes, skywriter 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I did find the anti-war project talk page and placed a comment. skywriter 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote: Thanks. Sorry about not putting a project link in there; I'm afraid I still don't really know how to deal with searches and links to internal Wikipedia stuff. I should learn... Peace. Kalkin 03:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To add a link, a cut and paste of the url should be enough. skywriter 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore[edit]

I removed the anti war template which you added to the article. My reasons are stated on the talk page. Just a heads up. Savidan 20:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for see also[edit]

I'm not 100% sure how the feel about the Iraq war. 132.241.245.49 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for the category. Kalkin 04:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source the info[edit]

If you have time, can you please source the info you added to List of United States foreign interventions since 1945 (I know you just moved it from another article):

1967 Alleged CIA involvement in takeover by military junta in Greece subsequently supported by US.

From a quick look, the article: military junta has no reference to the CIA.

This will assure that this contribution is not deleted by US apologists.Travb 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos[edit]

If you added all of those authors in American Empire (term), I am impressed. Nice job.Travb 21:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To assure that you are following the conversation, and dont miss all I added, here is my newest changes since you posted...cheers...Travb 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad it was you[edit]

I am glad you were the one who messaged me...I am fighting a fair use battle and I thought it was one of the admins and I don't want to be bothered by this right now, since I am working on Colombian Armed Conflict while I write a portion of a paper on the subject due tonight. Kudos....Travb 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at comments later--i have test in 1/2 hour.Travb 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Motopu[edit]

I notice you moved the links critical of the ISO into the notes. I think this makes people less likely to link to them and I think it would be more encouraging of further investigation if they were also in the links section. Did you also get rid of a couple of them? I think there were more before.

Also I noticed you said you did not think the ISO was anti-democratic. I don't know how much interaction you have with them, but if your view is based on their rhetoric about how they always "vote" on every action or other such statements, I would urge you to dig deeper. Pardon me if I'm making an incorrect assumption. This is my first time participating in the editing process. I have not had time yet to see a lot of your writing/editing. I'm the person who wrote ISOnuts, and my experience with ISO over the years has led me to the view that they are very anti-democratic. What democratic forms they use, they are very good at manipulating. I can provide you with sources/links/opinions/first hand accounts if you like as I don't expect you to just take what I say uncritically. You've probably already seen some of them.

motopu

I didn't remove any critical links, I just moved them to the notes. (The only change I made was to switch the infoshop link to point to the specific anti-ISO article, not the Leninism page.) I don't believe that "encouraging further investigation" is Wikipedia's purpose, but I guess I don't really have any objection to having critical links in both the Notes and External links sections, I just wanted to avoid redundancy.

I'm a member of the ISO, full disclosure, have been for a couple of years now, and my experience has been that the organization is democratic, though sometimes it has problems in coalition work, when members talk among themselves and end up effectively making decisions for the coalition prior to getting others' input, so that when others' input is then asked for it ends up being a formality. The effect, though not the intention, is anti-democratic. It's something that requires care and attention to avoid, because very often the ISO is the only subgroup in a coalition in regular communication, which means it tends to be responsible for all the initiative, and there's only so much you can do to encourage other people to take initiative and refrain from trampling ideas by groupthink, which is of course something it's easy to miss the need for.

I've read your criticism, and all of the others at the bottom of the Wikipedia page that I used when expanding the criticism section. I think you're unnecessarily attributing bad faith to people who were supposedly your friends, and misinterpreting "red-baiting." As the ISO uses the term, at least, it refers to the tendency to view members of socialist organizations as aliens infiltrating a movement with questionable, if not sinister, intentions - that's why Todd Chretien argues for its falsity by pointing to the integral role ISO members had played throughout. It's presumably not McCarthyite in intent in your case or most cases, but it is in effect; it leads to hostility, purges, or retreat from activism. It's also, usually, curiously focused on socialists; the people who I know personally who hate the ISO have no problem working with Democrats, even those who not only are interested in recruiting and come in with a set agenda, but also are pretty explicitly interested in directing the movement away from its concrete goals in favor of support for politicians, something the ISO has never pushed. (You may bring up Nader - the ISO's intention in campaigning for him was, however, always explicitly stated as a way to publicize anti-war sentiment and encourage a break from the corporate parties, rather than a choice based on any faith in electoral politics - and Nader's needs were never used to justify toning down rhetoric or in any way shaping the movement's message. It was a debateable tactical choice but hardly an attempt at co-option.)

Also, use four tildes in a row to sign your edits with name and date. Kalkin 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard this explanation of how the ISO "unintentionally" makes decisions and imposes them on others. I was not convinced by it five years ago, and I'm not convinced now. I believe you should think about the structural organization of your group as possibly having connections to how things "end up" getting done. There is an abundance of primary source and scholarly literature on the problems with vangaurdism, and the best of these critiques are from the Left. Believe me though, I know sometimes students have the least time to read!

As far as "groupthink" I'm glad you brought it up. Here are some sections from the wikipedia definition of the term that apply to what I have experienced with the ISO and their party line centralism. If you will, think of the ISO as you read them:

"Janis' original definition of the term was "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

Janis cited a number of antecedent conditions that would be likely to encourage groupthink. These include:

Insulation of the group
High group cohesiveness
Directive leadership
Homogeneity of members'... ideology

Janis listed eight symptoms that he said were indicative of groupthink:

2. Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group 3. Collective rationalization of group's decisions 4. Shared stereotypes of outgroup, particularly opponents 5. Self-censorship; members withhold criticisms 6. Illusion of unanimity (see false consensus effect) 7. Direct pressure on dissenters to conform 8. Self-appointed "mindguards" protect the group from negative information

I won't outline the ways in which these apply as I'm thinking maybe you know.

You try to label me as unintentionally McCarthyite in your response. Despite your attempt at neutral sounding language, that is really insulting given my years of activism and work for democratic processes. But your argument relies largely on fallacies. You imply that because the ISO started SAW, they can't be a controlling presence on the group from outside of it. Have you ever heard of a front group? These are most often started by the groups who control them. You say that the people who have bad experiences with the ISO, the unintentional McCarthyites, cause "hostility, purges, or retreat from activism." Outside of ISO meetings, the opinion is mostly that ISO methods--stifling initiative, lack of transparency, top down structures with advisors ("discipline"), strict paper sales regimens, party line adherence, cause burn out due to lack of chances for real input and creativity. Do you actually buy Todd's description of what happened? Have you ever thought that adhering to a party line is very similar to adhering to a (McCarthyite) loyalty oath? Do you have personal input into the direction and stances the ISO takes? Honestly. I've been an activist (for lack of a better term) for over twenty years, I was working against Contra Aid back when Todd was, and I've never encountered the kind of rigid groupthink I have with the ISO.

You say the ISO "never" pushed support for specific politicians. Remember Nationalist British MP George Galloway? Then there was as you point out Nader. Todd worked with Medea Benjamin. The ISO endorses non socialist candidates all the time, for example supporting Green Candidate for SF Mayor Matt Gonzalez. The ISO is constantly supporting politicians. Todd himself, the regional ISO organizer is running for Senate! Are you saying the ISO is not focusing on his campaign? Dude you're cracking me up. Despite your claim that political campaigns never gets in the way of the ISO message, Todd has heavily toned down his rhetoric as his recent interview on KPFA shows. The ISO fancies itself as some ideologically pure organization and doesn't even see the contradictions inherent in their own statements and actions.

You say I'm attributing bad faith to people who are supposedly my friends. I used to think so. But Alex, Katrina, Mike, Leticia, and other ISO members made clear over and over, that "we don't have to be friends" to work together. Every single one of them stuck to labelling us red baiters and McCarthyites after discussions on this. 100% agreement from our "friends" that we were all McCarthyites. Please, this has nothing to do with friendship or democracy and everything to with conformity. This was insulting to our non-ISO group who had been trying to keep the friendships with ISO members of SAW because we did like them as people. What got in the way was that they never responded to what we were talking about. Go back to Todd's statement. See all the stuff about us blaming the ISO for the state of the movement, the stuff about Kerry, the stuff about McCarthy? None of that reflected the non-ISO members views, none of whom were anti-socialist (several are socialists themselves), none of whom were pushing a Kerry line, and none of whom blamed the ISO for the "state of the movement". Our only issues were internal to SAW and how none of us felt we had input. When we did bring up issues, there was no encouragement from the ISO members to voice opinions. You keep insisting the structures are inherently democratic but democracy can't function in an uneven division of power and access, which the ISO fights to maintain by members own admissions (see my pamphlet for the quote).

As for the edits I think I can live with it, I'll go shorten the Todd quote, and I'm glad we can leave the links that are critical to the ISO as it brings some balance to your criticisms section. I notice the criticism section always starts with the anti-ISO position, with language such as "charge" or "allege" and ends with the ISO position, often with more muscular language. Please consider rewriting this to attain more neutral point of view. Thank you.

And I will try to sign and date entries as you have suggested. Four tildes you say, in the body of the page? I'll try it. Or do you mean just in the talk section? I didn't find the rules just now under editing directions.

Lastly, I notice there is no mention of Leninism in the entry. Why avoid the term? It seems to be self censoring, or perhaps giving in to a form of red baiting to have to conceal that the ISO is Leninist. Terms such as "classical Marxist" and "classic socialist model" seem to be obfuscations if Leninism is never brought up. I would think you would want to be clear about the Leninist ideological roots of the ISO. I think readers should be. Hey, a search for "Lenin" in the text comes up blank. What's going on? Put Lenin in there!

Motopu 22:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Motopu 14:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why did you take out every single one of my edits?[edit]

You read the pamphlet ISOnuts and you know that it is a _fact_ that ex members of SAW were offended by Todd Chretien labelling them McCarthyites and Red Baiters. His statement is on the record at the SAW site. Why did you take it out? Is it not a criticism?

I'm going back to do a re-edit. Contact me if you are unhappy with it.

Also, I think it is important to include external links that are critical of the ISO, otherwise the entry seems to be one sided.

Thanks Dave (Motopu)

I didn't make the changes you're referring to. Those were made by anonymous users - look at the history. Actually, though, while I am fine with including an additional paragraph in the criticism section outlining the accusation that allegations of red-baiting are used to shut up disagreements, the other edits you had made the first time were mostly simply changing wording to add POV without adding new information. Additionally, although quoting Todd Chretien is fine, good even, his quote should be cut down a little with ellipses, it's way too long. You're the one who knows what parts were most offensive to you - you do that. Kalkin 16:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dkalkin[edit]

Nice job on the edits today--thanks for all your work on American Empire (term). Real great clarificationsTravb 22:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, response on ISO article from Motopu[edit]

I have heard this explanation of how the ISO "unintentionally" makes decisions and imposes them on others. I was not convinced by it five years ago, and I'm not convinced now. I believe you should think about the structural organization of your group as possibly having connections to how things "end up" getting done. There is an abundance of primary source and scholarly literature on the problems with vangaurdism, and the best of these critiques are from the Left. Believe me though, I know sometimes students have the least time to read!

As far as "groupthink" I'm glad you brought it up. Here are some sections from the wikipedia definition of the term that apply to what I have experienced with the ISO and their party line centralism. If you will, think of the ISO as you read them:

"Janis' original definition of the term was "a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action."

Janis cited a number of antecedent conditions that would be likely to encourage groupthink. These include:

Insulation of the group
High group cohesiveness
Directive leadership
Homogeneity of members'... ideology