Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 August 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 26

Germany selling weapons to Israel

Does Germany have any obligation or special deal to provide weapons to Israel or is it just business as usual? OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This Huffington Post article, "Germany's Arms Sales and the Middle East" states "Germany's Nazi past led it to self-impose restrictions on international arms sales, the purpose of which was to avoid the transfer of weapons into the hands of governments in conflict zones or those that disrespected human rights." It then goes on to say it changed its policy and began making large sales to Saudi Arabia, with Israel's approval. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Germany is the third largest arms exporter, see Arms industry#World's largest arms exporters. 193.197.171.98 (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I expect Israel gets most of its arms imports from the US. This article supports that, stating, "Israel is so devoted to U.S. military hardware that it has the world's largest fleet of F-16s outside the U.S." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

France has historically been a source too - the Isreali IAI Kfir fighter-bomber is a licence-built version of the Dassault Mirage 5. I don't think the UK has supplied any major systems since the Centurion tank. I can't think of anything that the Germans might have sold them. Alansplodge (talk) 08:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The dreaded panzerkampfcuckooclocken mit der laser kannone? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Very interesting - but stupid!" (You'll get the reference if you're over 50). Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Pfft. I'm not yet 40. Matt Deres (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Germany is and has been providing arms to Israel. Contracts or 'deals' usually imply an obligation. 193.197.171.98 (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the Germans are selling second-hand submarines to Israel.[1] Sorry, that escaped my notice on a previous Google search. Alansplodge (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• If you put Germany as a supplier and Israel as a reciepent in this website http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/trade_register.php it will produce a list of all exports since 1950, it includes aircraft, helicopters, submarines, tanks, missiles and vehicles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Chicken theft

Are there any Dutch old master depictions of soldiers (or others) in pursuit of (or making off with) chickens? I had thought Bruegel's Proverbs might include In war, chickens are always the first casualties - but not so. Any other suggestions? Thanks, --catslash (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Rembrandt's The Night Watch features a dead chicken (though no one's pursuing it) and our article has a lot to say about its symbolism. It might also be worth looking through paintings by David Teniers the Younger. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Night Watch has the required military and poultry elements, and so is a pretty good answer even if it is somewhat lacking in the spirit of pillage, plunder or looting. So thank you. Thank you also for drawing my attention to David Teniers. --catslash (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Glad it helped even if not right on the money :) 184.147.119.141 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

"Guardroom scenes" and soldiers misbehaving in barns were among the many sub-genres of Dutch Golden Age painting. Specialist artists included Jacob Duck and Willem Cornelisz Duyster. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

These are tantalizingly close; poultry plunder must surely appear somewhere in these genre paintings (a term new to me (thanks)), but I just can't spot it. --catslash (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Pederasty as opposed to pedophilia

Are there any federal or state laws prohibiting the distribution of written child pornography, specifically stories about pederasty and pedophilia? In Canada and Australia, the distribution of written child pornography, or stories about children having sex with one another, is against the Criminal Code of Canada. People are given one year or more sentences in prison for distributing any written materials on child pornography describing children under the age of 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloiseabelard (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In 1993, Kim Campbell was the Minister of Justice in the Conservative Party elected Canadian government. She passed child pornography laws relating to both possession and distribution of child pornography images and photographs. Amendment number two added, "and any written materials". By the simple stroke of a pen, without any public debate, written child pornography became a federal crime in Canada. The United States does not have a law forbidding written child pornography and/or pederasty, for this would be a direct violation of the First Amendment under the Constitution of the United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloiseabelard (talk • contribs) 01:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems you answered your own question. Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What's your source for the claim that this is protected by the first amendment? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In a 1982 case the Supreme Court found there was not a blanket 1st Amendment protection of child pornography, but in 2002 it found broad prohibitions of seeming child pornography (like computer generated images John D. Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al. v. Free Speech Coalition) could not be banned wholesale. See here. μηδείς (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That's got to do with imagery. What did they have to say about writing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See Phillip Greaves (covered under Amazon.com after some folks on Wikipedia forbade development of an article, but here's an old version) Wnt (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Layout terminology: A photograph displaying an atmosphere (Atmosphere (architecture and spatial design)) or a synoptic view

In an exhibition catalogue, images of single art works are displayed. Some images however show a larger area of the exhibition space, maybe comprising spectators. This is sometimes termed "atmo" in analogy to Ambience (sound recording).

Is there another specific term for this kind of creative element? Thanks, 193.197.171.98 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

BigMac index for the Czech Republic and Hungary

Could you please help provide me the BigMac Index for the Cuech Republic and Hungary as well? Could you please tell me how much time is needed to gather enough money for a BigMac in the two above entioned countries? Thank you for your help in advance. --Ksanyi (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Big Mac index for Hungary: Price: $3.76 (Forint 860.00); Adjusted index: overvalued by 20.2%; Actual exchange rate: 228.46. Czech Republic: Price: $3.49 (Koruna 70.45); Raw index: undervalued by 23.4%; Actual exchange rate: 20.18; Implied exchange rate*: 15.46 (http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index). 193.197.171.98 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Big Mac Index, fyi. In 2009 (see page 11), it was 38 minutes for Prague-dwellers and 59 minutes for Budapest-dwellers. For 2013, I can only find the basic cost of a burger, not the times to earn. Here it is, with Hungary at 860 Forint and Czech Republic at 70.45 Koruna. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Measuring the availability of credit

When I hear the term credit crunch used, such as during the global financial crisis, it raises an interesting question in my mind: Are there any standardized indicators or indices to measure the availability of credit (as opposed to the cost)? When it comes to the "cost" side of credit, there are rates such as Libor and its' overseas counterparts. What measures would an economist use to rate the variation in the "availability" side of things? Are there any standardized formulas or scales? (I imagine one indicator might be "percentage of loan / credit card applications approved", but are there others, such as in the non-bank finance sector?). Also, is there any site where I can find such data? 203.45.95.236 (talk) 13:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The two main measures would be change in the money supply and levels of bank lending. The first shows the availability of funds, the second the ability of lender and borrower to come to an agreement on the risk / reward trade-off. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Trying to validate a quote

Anybody have a copy of or have access to a book by Bernice Rose called "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published in 1987 by the Museum of Modern Art? Links for purpose of identifying the book:[2], [3].

The reason I ask is because I would like to validate a quote supposedly from that book. I encountered the quote at this web site. The quote is:

"Copying from another’s artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such 'unartistic' models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

Thanks for any help anyone can offer in this. Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I only have access to the German translation of that book, so I could only check content wise (and that just if the translation is fine). 193.197.171.98 (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have posted this question here as well, and page 17 seems to be approximately where it would be found. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

193.197.171.98—can you tell me if the last sentence—"In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time", is essentially the same in German? I'm especially interested in determining that the source confirms in essence that he challenged the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time, as that is what I wish to assert in an article. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OP, you could also ask at WP:REX. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, JackofOz, I should have used WP:REX, and I still may, though I hesitate to start too many threads, as I have already started two threads concerning this question. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz—thanks for the suggestion. I have inquired here too. Bus stop (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

From the German translation: Werke anderer Künstler zu kopieren war im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert bereits seit geraumer Zeit aus der Mode gekommen; die Avantgarde hatte sich zunehmend der Originalität der Erfindung verschrieben. Als Lichtenstein sich dem altmodischen Kopieren (und zwar derart "unkünstlerischer" Vorlagen) zuwandte, tat er es auf charakteristische Weise: er kopierte so offensichtlich, dass es jeder merkte. Im Grunde hatte er damit den Fehdehandschuh geworfen, da er den damals herrschenden Originalitätsbegriff in Frage stellte. (p. 15) – This is a pretty fair translation of what you have given. Specifically, it is indeed stated that he questioned the then prevailing notion of originality. (Mind that in the quote given by you, it should be "score" instead of "store", and shouldn't it also be "another artist's" instead of "another's artist's"? 193.197.171.98 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi 193.197.171.98—thank you for the German translation and thank you for confirming its approximate equivalency to the English. As concerns certain wording you are right that "another’s" is incorrect. It should read "another". But as concerns "store", that is the correct word. Another editor, in this thread has managed to find this source. It shows that the phrase used is "set store by". I think that may be a somewhat idiomatic phrase. This dictionary defines it as "to value or reckon as important." Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the meaning of "to set store"! 193.197.171.98 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Top 10 industries

What are the top 10 biggest industries in the world?

I mean like, petroleum industry, arms industry, entertainment industry, etc...

--YB ^✍ 15:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Define "biggest". I would think food production is the biggest, simply because it's the most essential to survival. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The biggest in term of income.--YB ^✍ 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation, turn-over, profit, wages disbursed per year, mass volume of physically embodied use-values, hour volume of service use-values? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

You can get started at Outline of industry. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you but these articles don't talk about the world ranking of their respective industry.--YB ^✍ 17:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently these are difficult figures to find, because so much depends on how you classify companies into industries and how you can count - or estimate - "underground" market activity. For example, our article Petroleum industry claims (uncited) that "The production, distribution, refining, and retailing of petroleum taken as a whole represents the world's largest industry in terms of dollar value." On the other hand, Forbes claims the biggest is the food industry. And this list by CNN in 2009 puts communications equipment at the top, with petroleum at 7th and food at 14th - but it clearly has broken up the petroleum industry into more categories than our article did. You're going to find different lists depending on how people did the counting. 184.147.119.141 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of religion in the United Kingdom

I was reading an article on Freedom of religion in the United Kingdom. I am still not entirely sure how freedom of religion operates in the U.K., since the U.K. is known to have various state churches and state-funded religious schools. Does the state church in any way limit the propagation of minority faiths? In the United States, I have spoken with a person (now atheist) who was raised Presbyterian but was allowed to enter a Catholic high school, because he perceived that the high school had excellent academics. Is this type of situation allowed in the U.K. or do the U.K. schools require a background check of the religious affiliation of the applicant, making sure that the applicant is by faith affiliated with one of the state churches? 140.254.170.40 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In Britain they have public schools, then the other schools are free to discriminate if they want however they must fill up otherwise the remainder free places - this is requested by law - are then to be kept open to all. This is what it says if you look into the article Education in the United Kingdom and select the link related. A really funny good idea, although the U.K., they are also a small country. So does the state church limit the propagation of minority faiths ? Do they encourage it ? Your question may be considered ambiguous if they are to indoctrinate people of minority faiths or otherwise encourage them to proselytism inside their own ranks ? --AhnguoverT'day (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In Britain, anybody can believe anything and call themselves whatever they like. The national Census has asked for self-description of religious belief for some time, and this has led to people describing themselves as Jedi Knights, or even Aesthetic Hedonists. Our article Religion in the United Kingdom is quite informative. As to the question of background checks, this varies between schools. Some C of E schools allow adherents of other religions to attend because of their desire for a non-secular education. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The "State Church" (Church of England) has open admission to most of its Primary schools (4 to 11 years). In many areas, the local state-funded Primary school bears the "Church of England" label in its name for historical reasons (the church often owns the building), but has little more connection with the "State Church" than secular schools (though the church will have some input through the Governing Body). Church of England Secondary schools (11 to 16) in the UK often have a policy of requiring evidence of religious commitment where there is competition for places, but they often admit pupils from other denominations (both Protestant and Catholic) and also from other faiths (Muslims, Sikhs etc.) The policy of the Church of England is to encourage tolerance and understanding between denominations and faiths. Almost all church schools in the UK are state funded for the education of pupils, but those that bear the words "Voluntary Aided" in their title contribute towards building costs. Sixth Forms (16 to 18) usually have open admission with no check on religion. See the article on Faith schools for more information. Dbfirs 21:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See also Faith schools turning away from religious selection highlighted. Alansplodge (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The only lack of religious freedom there seems to be (and it is disappearing) is for the members of the CoE themselves. Until recently, the Church's members were highly regulated by the state. For example, the Church could appoint you a female vicar, or forbid your sovereign from marrying a Catholic. The CoE isn't even actually subsidized by the state any more, just "legitimized". It seems that since Catholics were emancipated in Britain in the 19th Century, the least free religious believers have been the holdouts for the Anglican Church. μηδείς (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, bishops in the Church of England are appointed by the Prime Minister (who might not be an Anglican or even a Christian), although in the real world, the PM can't actually block the appointment - Mrs Thatcher tried and failed to stop David Jenkins becoming Bishop of Durham. Alansplodge (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Re education, just to clarify that public schools are irrelevant to this discussion. Like all other fee-paying schools outside the state system, they set their own admission criteria. State schools have recently gained more control over their admissions if they have converted to academy status. "Faith schools" tend to give preference to applicants with an appropriate religious affiliation for the majority of their intake, although they are usually obliged to retain a small quota for selection by other criteria and to place certain special circumstances (such as being in local authority care) ahead of the religious requirements. Popular faith schools certainly do check religious credentials and there is plenty of evidence of parents trying to game the system in order to get their children into such schools (see here, for example). Lastly, bear in mind that you can't generalise about education in the UK as a whole, because the systems are very different in the four constituent countries. Most of what has been written in this thread is applicable to England but not necessarily elsewhere, particularly Scotland, which has a very different system indeed. - Karenjc 09:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my comments above were about schools in England. See Scottish Episcopal Church and Church of Scotland for established churches in Scotland, and Church in Wales for the Welsh equivalent. In Northern Ireland (as in Liverpool and some other areas of England), the Catholic Church has more schools than the Anglican Church (see Roman Catholicism in Ireland, Church of Ireland and Education in Northern Ireland). Selection on faith grounds by Faith Schools in England is rare outside the 11 to 16 age range. Admissions panels are often wise to the tricks of parents who try to cheat the system, though some probably succeed in their subterfuge. Dbfirs 20:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

In England, "Around 34 per cent of maintained schools in England are schools with a religious character... Around 68 per cent of maintained faith schools have a Church of England religious character and 30 per cent have a Roman Catholic religious character. The first minority faith schools to open in the state sector were Jewish. The first Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh state schools have all opened since 1998, and the first non-Christian faith academy (a Sikh school in Hillingdon) opened earlier this year." Department of Education - Voluntary and faith schools Alansplodge (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It might help our US readers to clarify that the term "Public School" has different (opposite) meanings in the UK and the US.

UK "Public School" = US "Private School".

UK "State School" = US "Public School".

Just so everyone is in sync with the terms being tossed around. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll offer a Northern Ireland perspective here, specifically on education. It is also part of the UK. Fee charging schools and boarding schools exist, but they are rare. Since at least 1994 all schools have been tax funded, no matter who runs them. 50% of pupils attend schools run by the Education Department. The remaining 50% attend schools run by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. De facto religious segregation operates. Protestant children can attend a Catholic school. Roman Catholic children can attend a government run school; they just rarely do. Perhaps 80-95% of pupils at any one school come from one half of the community. Some government run schools are desegregated ('integrated schools'), but they are the exception. Religion and politics are connected here.

I attended a government run school. Then I thought I had religious freedom, but I've decided otherwise. I left school thinking Northern Ireland has a flag, the Bible has 66 books, 'Eire' was 'another name for Ireland', the Irish national flag was a political symbol, to become a teacher you need to attend government-run Stranmillis College, and without knowing how to say 'hello' in the Irish language. In fact, Northern Ireland has not had a flag since 1972, Wikipedia says the Roman Catholic Bible has 72 books, 'Eire' is in fact Irish for Ireland, I only realised the Irish flag represented a nation when I visited Dublin and saw it on a government building, the Roman Catholic Church operates another teacher training academy in Belfast called St Mary's College, and anyone I've met who attended a Catholic school can speak at least simple Irish.

The Education Act 1946 (I think) makes compulsory in UK schools 'an act of worship of broadly Christian character'. That normally comprised a short Bible reading and five minutes 'ethical talk' by a teacher in the school assembly. Religious Education, as a subject alongside Maths, English, Science and a foreign language was officially compulsory to age 16. The power to opt out rested with parents, not pupils.

In the workplace and entertainment religious freedom was the same as England, where I also lived. In applying for employment it is compulsory to state whether you are Catholic, Protestant or neither; and this information is supposed to go to an independent Monitoring Officer in the company who observes the political and religious composition of the workforce. If you refuse to answer, the Monitoring Officer 'makes inferences'. That means they decide according to where you live or the school you went to.

About official religions: in England the official church since approximately 1540 (?) has been the Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England (same thing). The Queen is Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. In Scotland, the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is the official religion, but the Queen is merely a member. In Wales the Church of England was disestablished 1927. In Northern Ireland it was disestablished 1870. --92.25.229.123 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Communism and nationalism

Hi,
I thought that according the communist ideology all men are totally equal, therefore national is irrelevant.
Then I remembered that during the cold war there were many Communist countries.
My question is why haven't they all unified to the Soviet Union like Russia and Kazakhstan etc...Exx8 (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Partly UN votes, partly independent communist parties (Yugoslavian and Chinese to begin with), partly the Poles were untrustworthy (there was a debate inside the Polish and Soviet parties about Poland becoming an SSR at the end of WWII), partly because the Eastern European Countries had to have their right wing and social democratic parties eliminated, and their peasants parties destroyed (Salami tactics). Real-politik. Also the suggestion that the Soviet Union was communist is extremely controversial amongst scholars, (State capitalism, degenerated workers state, new class, etc.) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

China and Russia didn't much care for each other during the Cold War. They basically didn't think the other was the right kind of communist. Mingmingla (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Because communism was a minority ideology which was given as the justification to millennia-old cultures for them to accept their domination by the Russians or Chinese. Whatever a Slovak thought of socialism, there was no need for him to submit himself to the pretensions of a Russo-Leninist rump. μηδείς (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Few, if any, leaders actually seemed to believe in the tenets of communism. Instead they used it to fool the masses into thinking they were something other than the dictators they truly were. I suggest you read Animal Farm for a detailed explanation of the mechanics. StuRat (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a source for that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

George Orwell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. Should we quote the punch line of the book, or should we let the OP read that for himself? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

While all Wikipedia Ref Desk questions are equally good, some are more equal than others. :-) StuRat (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest Soviet leaders were fooling themselves as much as they were (or as a means of) trying to fool the people. Anecdotally (perhaps apocryphally), the beginning of Khrushchev's downfall was a speech he gave to the Politburo in late 1963 or early 1964, which he began with the line, "Comrades, I have excellent news! In less than two decades, the Soviet Union will be living according to true communism!" ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. In his book, The Way of the Weasel, Scott Adams said that the ones we are most weaselly with are ourselves. I would say that especially applies to "leaders". Before they can sell the lie, they have to believe the lie as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Few, if any, leaders actually seemed to believe in the tenets of communism."!!! Kolakowski's chief criticism of Trotsky is his lack of self-reflective awareness that his Marxism wasn't; and the same with Stalin. Kolakowski's criticism, a strong and well put variant on the substitutionalist criticism of Lenin that we had seen put since 1905 holds that all of these men believed in a kind of scientistic teleology of being; that state ownership was "sufficient" for "socialism"; and that the actions of the party, as necessarily correct, were the only ones that could produce either "socialism" or a further moment of teleology. As detestable as this is, this was their actual and genuine belief. The formation of two lines in the political committee of the USSR over Hungary 1956 shows this, and I believe it to be in Granville's work for the CWIHP at Wilson, is that white some reformists like Mikoyan lined up behind the actual workers councils, that the majority line backed oh so strongly by the soon to be "anti-party bloc" genuinely believed that armed workers councils leading the party and the state by the nose towards further socialisation was "fascism." Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Who says they were mistaken? "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". — Melab±1 ☎ 04:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In the post-1989 world, or even in the pre-1989 world amongst people who read Marx, it was commonly agreed that Marx recognised the self-comprehending proletariat as the subject of history. Even Bakunin in his attack on Marx on this point recognised, while abhoring, it. Even Kolakowski above is finely aware of this, while believing Marx's views were vacilating and utopian. Any power differential would break down the claim of a communist society; and the substitution of a party for the class would break down the claim to being socialist. "Who says they were mistaken?" their own ideology. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And "power differentials" would soon build up again. But, besides that, a revolution would need leaders or such, and that's where the problem lies. It's best to leave everyone to themselves. — Melab±1 ☎ 17:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

That's some truly hot speculation, but it is a long way from representing a singular academic consensus. In particular, you'd need a theory for why power differentials build up for anyone to be interested in your opinion. 19th century reactionary fatalism has been discredited for some time, and claims about eternal human nature seem to have been thoroughly rejected over the 20th century. Let me suggest the powerful connection between the level of social productivity, the form of ownership and economic control relationships in a society, and the foundations of fundamental differences in power in any society. Some German wrote a fair bit on this in the 1860s. A fair number of people have applied his theories specifically to the soviet-style societies. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Irony. Now that will always be a part of life. The human species is still a type of animal, i.e., it isn't exempt from instincts. Social conditions may have some effect, but they can only work with what is already there. — Melab±1 ☎ 01:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

...to get back to the original question: The Soviet Union was certainly modeled to become a federation of socialists republics well beyond the boundaries of the old Russian empire. At the time of Comintern communist parties used slogans such as 'Soviet Germany', 'Soviet America', etc.. It was (probably) never explicitly stated, but the implicit notion was that once Soviet republics were established they would join the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Mongolia did however remain outside of the Soviet Union, but it was not considered to have a full-fledged communist party at its helm. However, the Second World War dramatically changed Soviet policy: Comintern was unilaterally closed down, communist parties were encouraged to seek broad alliances against fascism, the discourse of communist parties was increasingly adapted to national or regional contexts, domestically inside the Soviet Union more emphasis on Russian/Slavic national identity was used in the war discourse. Notably, the new approach was much more in line with popular opinions and became cemented in the practice of the World Communist Movement. There were discussions on forming a federation (parallel to the USSR) of the Eastern European states (which, according to Stalin, should have included Greece) after the Second World War, but in the end the Soviets decided not to back it. --Soman (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Istvan Bibo proposed a "Central European Commonwealth" on socialist lines in 1956, from a teletype, in a parliament house being attacked by Soviet Tanks. This was to be a federal arrangement amongst Hungary and Poland (at a minimum) that was to respect cultural self expression including national self-expression while maintaining and further developing workers councils. The Soviet Union was fairly opposed to this idea, but it seems more on the "workers councils" being abhorrent than the threat of a Polish-Hungarian trade union. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Surprised no one has linked to Bourgeois nationalism. --Jayron32 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Surprised people are still misquoting Lord Acton. What he actually said was: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)