Talk:Aleksandr Zinovyev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] “Pessimistic”, “chaotic”, “absurd” etc.

Constanz, Zinoviev’s works are not pessimistic by definition of the term. “Cynical”, on the other hand, has no negative connotation, and precisely describes his works, which tell us that, basically, all people are scoundrels (similarly to Scott Adams’ Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel). Now, I hope that I will not have to explain to you why this passage has no place in Wikipedia:

The stories are made delibaretly chaotic in form so as to show the absurd and paradoxality of Soviet everyday life.

...although I have reasons to suspect that you sincerely believe that this is neutral. Ramir 08:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ramir, if you think Soviet life was not absurd, it's your personal pov and you have every right for that. But: the very sentence quoted by you is not my invention: sorry to say, I've exactly taken it from Websters Concice Encyclopedia. You may of course argue that I need to quote then.
Instead of expressing your personal ideas about mr. Zinovyev you might give the translations of his titles. Constanz - Talk 15:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
You attribute to me what I do not have. The reason why the words from Websters Concise are... eh, not encyclopedic, is not because of my positive attitude to Soviet life, but because the sentence:
  • is a first-hand judgement with no backing. (no examples, references or anything)
    is vague (the words “chaotic”, “absurd”, “paradoxality” do not mean much in this context, but are emotionally charged)
    is incompetent (Zinoviev has never been an outright hater of Soviet life; if some believe so, it is because all they know about Zinoviev is from dodgy Western biased secondary sources)
If “chaotic” here means “haphazard” or “disorderly” there may be one reason for it: The Yawning Heights is in fact a compilation of various short stories by Zinoviev. I am not sure about his other works, but they may be compilations as well. Ramir 19:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Now, on cynicism and pessimism. As I have said, the word “cynicism” is not emotional. That Zinovyev’s works are all cynical is not a completely inarguable truth, but... it just describes his works very well, and very few would disagree with such judgement. It is well-defined and neutral. If there was a scientific method for measuring cynicism of a given text, Zinoviev’s works would certainly pass the test. But anyway, I agree that if one is picky, I cannot really defend the neutrality of such a statement. Well, at least we’ve removed the “pessimistic” from there. (you see, Zinovyev was not pessimistic enough about the fate of the Soviet Union.) Ramir 19:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
it is because all they know about Zinoviev is from dodgy Western biased secondary sources I would remind you I am from 'East' as you appearantly are; my sources are Zinovyev's translations into Estonian and comments by translators/literature scholars. Constanz - Talk 14:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if misunderstood; I did not mean you by saying that. Nevertheless, all Western sources I have read are, more or less, like I described. And thus I am against direct copying of their critique of Zinoviev into this article: even if all journalists outside Russia write that Zinoviev is (/was) an anti-Communist or a pro-Communist, it is still not neutral to present that opinion as a fact. Ramir 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
A defined anti-communist or not, he used to be against communism and now he is obviously for communism. Article should reflect it.Constanz - Talk 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Zinoviev has never been “for” Communism. That he was “against” Communism is a much easier point to claim, but if Zinoviev himself was to comment on it, he would, I bet, say that such words are not defined well enough, and thus can not be entirely true or false. Let me approach this issue from another end: if, say, an Estonian wrote a satirical novel about life in modern-day provincial Estonian town, would he be called anti-liberal, or anti-Estonian or anti-Western, etc.? I have read all interviews and publications by Zinoviev I could put my hands on (except most of the scientific ones), and I have met no justification to call him an anti- or pro- Communist or -something else. Ramir 10:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Ramir, you're not right. Zinovyev now is for communism, this is without a shadow of doubt (isn't his support for CPRF proof enough? and see http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/100680.shtml and his interview for Pravda, where Z admitted everything he has written about Soviet life is true, but had he known what followed, he would not have written a single line of it).
And pls stop these arguments that if someone is critical of something, then he is not necessarily opposed to it. See quotations by Z. [1] I've collected and tell me, was he against Communism (I'd say, he was furious enemy of it) or not. I really don't know why do you want to make things look milder than they really are. Zinoviev has the disposition of being furiously opposed to smth, and he has maintained it, finding new thingas to hate and what I've read from this author clearly shows that he used to hate Soviet Communism no less than Solzhenitsyn, so let us call things with proper names, shall we? Constanz - Talk 12:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Please trust that I do not want to promote a political POV or “whitewash” anything about Zinoviev. His support of the CPRF just after Perestroika and in the beginning of 90’s was only the sensible man’s strife to save his homeland from the (actual and observable) economical catastrophe. He has never proclaimed to be a supporter of the Communist ideology itself. In the latest works and interviews, he still calls Marxism an ideology with no scientific basis. On the other hand, I object to the use of the term “anti-Communist” for its vagueness. Even if Z ever was “against Communism”, it can not be completely true, since, in some ways, he has always been “against” any other political doctrine or movement in the world. If it sounds like a demagogy to you, here is a dry and simple justification, “debate-style”: Zinoviev has never appealed to destroy or reform Communism, or proclaimed political views that oppose those of Marxism-Leninism. Ramir 13:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the A.Zinoviev section [2] as I've made my point already clear and the text is irrelevant here. Constanz - Talk 11:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Was Zinoviev against communism?

You previous claims can be regarded only as sophistry. You maintain, Zinoviev has never appealed to destroy or reform Communism, or proclaimed political views that oppose those of Marxism-Leninism. Let us examine the question then.

[edit] Opposition put into effect

As for support for destroying communism I would only mention a simple fact known to me: all 3 books by Zinoviev published in my native language (1989-1991) have a notification: the author donates the fee to the Estonian National Independence Party (didn't this party aim at putting an end to Soviet rule and communism, at least in Estonia, eh?).

In the author's foreword, he explains his ideas concerning USSR:

As a Russian I welcome the liberation movements of every people in the USSR. Already in my youth I presented my minimal and maximal programme for the solution of national problems. The first one would be: the Russian Federation should step out of the USSR. The second: Russian population should step out of the Russian SFSR. Those, whom I presented my programme, regarded it as a joke and laughed at it. (author's foreword to 'Gorbatšovism, Tallinn, 1990'.)

(But Ramir clears our doubts away: 'Zinoviev has never appealed to destroy or reform Communism ...!!!)

Now, this is something very new and surprising to me! I admit my ignorance of this, and will try to find more about his “donations”. Still, this is not enough to call him an anti-Communist. Instead, we should write that Zinoviev said this and that. The reader will judge and brand Z’s political views for himself, OK? And it is unclear to me, whether he wrote that in, or shortly before 1990 (which I find incredible), or that he “presented his programme” back in 1970’s? Ramir 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The foreword was written November 18, 1989. And that's the end of the matter: he furiously opposed Marxism in his writings (these sentences proof enough, I think), portrayed life in USSR in dark tones and as hopeless (this is not cynicism, cynicism is when you just laugh at the stupidity of people, which you regard as worthless), supported nationalist movemnt(s). The particular movement founded in August, 1988, was the first (massive) opposition party in the USSR, and its supporters could onlyt be radical anti-communists. And that's enough for Z.'s anti-communism.

[edit] Opposition to Marxist-Leninist philosophy and praxis

Here we are:

'In the satirical "sociological novels" [Zinoviev shows] paradoxality and the absurdity of the Soviet reality [exactly my words!--Constanz].

Good enough for an American propagandistic brochure, not for a neutral encyclopaedia. Ramir 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

From the end of 1980s on, Zinoviev rejects the basic values of the Western society (...) emerges with the apology of Soviet system and Marxist theory which contradicts with his own sociology and the theory of scientific communism.'

(my approximate translation of some sentences from [[3]])

“Apology of Soviet system” is, again, a vague description. Instead of relying (re-lying) on secondary sources, we should provide a direct reference to Zinoviev’s “apologies” in the article. Yes, I know that he said that if he knew (back in 1970’s) that the Union was about to collapse, he would not write any of his works on socialistic Russia. But this is not enough to brand him as pro-Communist. Ramir 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What else can we say: let Zinoviev speak for himself:

[edit] Zinoviev on Communism and Marxist-Leninist ideology

  • But the [communist] authorities acquire from Marxism a splendid method and abounding phraseology to justify whatever piggery. (no, Zinoviev was not opposed to Marxism and 'piggery' of communist authorities...)
  • The scientific approach uncovers, that Communism does not eliminate the inequality between men, the social injustice, exploitation of man by man and other evils of society – communism merely changes their form and gives birth to new evils, which become eternal fellow-travelers of communism.
  • None of the Marxist concepts (literally – not a single one!) matches the logical rules of scientific concepts. (no, according to Ramir, Zinoviev never opposed the ideology he would regard as illogical and without any real basis)
  • All in all, Engels talked so much rot of every kind, that now all the world’s academies of science should be directed to rectify his mistakes and idiocies. (Ramir: 'Zinoviev has never (..) proclaimed political views that oppose those of Marxism-Leninism' -- one can be called an anti-communist only when one adapts a certain non-communist ideology, i.e declares himself to be a fascist, or a centrist, or a monarchist?) Constanz - Talk 16:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    I know about these; and I know that Zinoviev has not changed his mind about Marxism. Thus, if these quotations are your proof of Zinoviev’s anti-Communism, he still is an anti-Communist. But, I see, you won’t agree with this, since they say that Zinoviev has become a pro-Communist. Ramir 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramir’s standpoint

I only strive to keep this article neutral, true and precise. We should put in it as many facts and opinions about Zinoviev as there are, but Wikipedia’s NPOV policy dictates that all of those opinions must be referenced. Branding (like calling someone a good guy, a sad guy, a cynic, a bird-hater, a snail-eater, or an anti-Communist) is unacceptable outside quotations and references, since it does not provide clear knowledge, but allows various interpretations, and is often emotionally charged. So, Constanz, let us, instead of arguing, edit the article according to the policies. You, for example, can write that “In 1984, Zinoviev was called an anti-Communist by the German newspaper X”, or “Zinoviev wrote about Marxism[1] that it is (...)”. But please, do not generalise things and do not present opinions from secondary sources as facts in the article, even if they seem totally justified to you. Ramir 01:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some Statements in the Section "Youth"

In the section "Youth" we find the statement: He (Zinoviev) recalls that he has been arrested but managed to escape, and later involved in a plot to assassinate Stalin during a school parade. Are these claims credible? They seem exceedingly far-fetched to me. Is there any third-party corroboration for these claims or is Zinoviev the only source for them? Either way, the fact of corroboration or lack thereof needs to be put in the article. Hi There 21:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

“Recalls” is a weasel word, so I had to replace it by «claims to have done so and so». As for the matter itself:
  1. Zinoviev was quite an unusual man.
  2. There is no great reason for a reputable man like himself to make up stories.
  3. Since their group, according to Zinoviev, only involved four kids (and they all disparted when the oldest guy disappeared), it would be virtually impossible to corroborate his claims.
  4. He discussed the phenomenon of assasination plots in Temptation («Искушение») and elswhere, I think.
  5. Now that I have improved the neutrality of the statement, there is no need to explicitly state a lack of proof. Okay?
    Ramir 12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations, comrades!

Better late than never. I have only just noticed the article in Telegraph that is about 95% based on our one (as it was at the time). So, our creation must’ve been not so wretched after all! And Constanz, note how even a biased journalist of an English rag did not use attitude words like “pessimistic”, “chaotic”, and did not adopt your theory about Zinoviev’s anti-/pro-Communism. Indeed, that journalist is about halfway between sober scientific narration of Wikipedia and bias-laden propaganda like “Zinoviev’s writings were chaotic, and he changed his views from anti-Communist to pro-Communist and anti-globalist”. Again, congratulations to you, gentlemen, and Constanz above all. Ramir 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)