Talk:List of Romanian communists

Untitled

This really serves no purpose, especially since membership -as stated- was virtually mandatory. These people are not "communists", they are merely members of the Romanian Communist Party. Băsescu and Pauker together just doesn't work. Dahn 05:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Paunescu and Wurmbrand

I know the criteria you fixed. But to check compliance with these criteria you also need sources. I don't see sources placing Paunescu (a court bard, if you want) and Wurmbrand (once upon a time a Marxist) in the Party hierarchy. From what I know, if you place Paunescu in this list, all the Romanian poets of the time get in the same category. Most of them have criticised the system "from the interior", Paunescu included. And most of them were quite involved with the party. If you want an example, take Blandiana. Her critic of the system was less direct than that of Paunescu. Dpotop 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, we discussed this when you convinced me to leave Emil Constantinescu outside this list. Then, you said something about objective criteria. I can't see, for both guys I erased from the list, how they fit these objective criteria. Dpotop 15:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What I have actually said is that position in the party would matter for people who were not notable as communists from the very start. It may be, for example, that all party leaders were hypocritical, and none was actually a communist in real life. But that is of no relevancy, since all people who have had a certain position in the party have had a relevant activity as communist officials. That is where place in the hierarchy becomes relevant, and only after the 1960s, when one couldn't really determine who was a communist by conviction. Both cases you cite have nothing to with hierarchy, and both are in relation to communist convictions.

Păunescu is widely identified as the main contributor of propaganda. He was also leader of a communist youth trend, which was integrated into official ideology.

Wurmbrand was a member of the Communist party in clandestinity, which, incidentally, is as close to the original and actual meaning of "activist" as one gets.

Please understand that the purpose of such a list is to determine who has had a relevant activity as a communist, not to accuse and rank those who have mimicked it. Dahn 15:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. In my family, the dissident writings of Paunescu were known well before the revolution. So there are many of Romanians that won't define Paunescu as "the main contributor of propaganda".

Objective facts are not open to subjective interpretations. He contributed propaganda, and admitted to it. Dahn 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

As for Wurmbrand, you use your very own interpretation of "activist". Accoding to other interpretations, Constantinescu was an activist. Period. You restricted this definition, so Wurmbrand goes out. Dpotop 15:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the definition in the English language! I have "restricted" the criteria solely for post-1960, as any reasonable source would do! Lest we become ridiculous. Dahn 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion: I see no clear criteria for inclusion. The fact that you believe Paunescu was bad is not enough. Dpotop 15:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where the hell do you get the idea that this is about "good" and "bad"?! It is a statement of facts! I genuinely mistrust your good faith in editing this list, if you think that I would be listing people I agree or disagree with!! Again, the point is not ever about "what that makes us feel", but about what use this list is to the outside user. Lest we become ridiculous. Dahn 15:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A list of Romanian communists without Păunescu? He had a great influence in Ceauşescu's propaganda machine.

Here's what the Tismăneanu report is saying about him:

Poetul nu uita, însă, niciodată să amintească tuturor celor încântaţi de ce văd şi de ce simt că datorează Conducătorului suprem – care vorbeşte prin gura lui – supunere şi iubire, căci numai El le poate asigura, în vremurile acelea tulburi şi în colţul acesta de lume, liniştea şi stabilitatea. Nimeni nu a făcut un mai mare serviciu propagandei şi regimului lui Ceauşescu. Acest scriitor, prin acţiunile lui, prin personalitatea lui care fascina şi descumpănea, a prelungit existenţa comunismului naţionalist-ceauşist, precizându-i, cristalizându-i şi întrupându-i doctrina.

bogdan 16:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the report. Thanks to you I started to read it.

It's a nice piece of tendentious anti-communist propaganda.

What I like best is the thread related to patriotism. Just like "regimul burghezo-mosieresc" was bad even when apparently doing good, the communist regime was not patriotic even when giving all signs of it. Dpotop 17:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanking Bogdan, I want to extend a paradox on Wurmbrand. I'm going to disregard that it should have been clear from the very start that criteria in relation to position in hierarchy were not applied to people who were members of the Communist Party before the 1st of January 1948. The reasons for this are as obvious as possible:

1. the entire membership of the party in, say, 1933 was several times smaller than just the political apparatus of the party in, say, 1970!
2. the very issue of selecting activists from members in the post-1948 period, and especially in the post-1968 period, was so that we do not induce the false notion that membership=conviction. Now, honestly, will anyone rationally doubt that a member of the illegal Communist Party among the select 1,000 had communist convictions?! Will the issues of "opportunism" or "obligation" ever surface in this context?
3. in normal historical circumstances, this list would comprise all those members of the Communist Party who are notable enough to have an article on wikipedia. If this were a list of French communists, membership and personal beliefs would merge almost perfectly to aid in creating a list that would be both eloquent and indisputable. For clear reasons that are particular to Romanian Communism, using the same criteria consistently for party members at all times between 1921 and 1989 would be idiotic. Let me give you one: Paul Goma has declared that he entered the Communist Party in 1968, out of conviction - initially seeing Ceauşescu as an anti-Soviet leader! (let me add: unlike Păunescu, who has frequently shown he had communist convictions)
4. if we are to exclude from the lists communists who did not hold party ranks, although being its activists in the strictest of senses, we would have to exclude Haia Lifschitz, Ilie Pintilie, Olga Bancic, Solomon Tinkelman, Gilbert Moscovici, N. D. Cocea, Vasile Roaită and probably others, despite the fact that all these people are notable, and despite the fact that most of them are notable solely for being communists.
5. this list also includes non-members of the Party who have held communist beliefs, all of whom are recorded on as objective a basis as Wurmbrand.
6. the assumption that I or anybody has designed this list as a means to accuse is abhorrent. I came to this list precisely to rescue it from its potential for solicism and slander, and have tried to make it a working instrument for casual users, not a vehicle for quelling my frustrations or promoting my beliefs. (In fact, unlike my detractors, I do not ever consider that a person was necessarily wrong for being a communist.) Wurmbrand's inclusion is not to make him look bad or for any other such reason: it is because it is relevant, and Dpotop should once and for all accept that this is the guideline we should follow. Dahn 19:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Your entire argumentary here makes me believe more and more that the current classification is insufficient. Activists are one thing, and they should not include non-activists because someone decided to have only one category of communists. Dpotop 21:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... I'm sorry, I couldn't follow that logic. Could you rephrase that? Dahn 21:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes:

1. You say you have some criteria for before 1945 and some other for after 1945. This clearly means you need to have two categories. For instance Wurmbrand was a Communist when the party had <1000 members. But his name is not recalling people Communism, and never has . So, you could put him in a Category "Members of the Communist party before 1945", but not in "PCR Activists". It's dumb. Dpotop 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
2. You say you want to include in the category "Activists" people that were not members of the party but whose name is related with Communism. I say: "yas, they were Romanian Communists". But not Activists. Dpotop 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, you seem to imply that I find something fundamentally bad in being a Communist. I don't. Blame should go to those who devised and ruthlessly implemented criminal policies. Not all. And blame should be distributed according to rules, not because some Communist decided to blame some other Communists in order to forge himself a career. Dpotop 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I wanted to make two sections of a list (pre- and post-1948), but, because I have looked into the matter I'm addressing, and am not simply theorizing about it, I can tell you that it is virtually impossible - we would have to have access to documents indicating the exact moment of membership,which is simply too obscure or was never properly recorded for many (see, for instance, the article on Scarlat Callimachi (communist activist))
2. I did not say that. Scroll down to the bottom of the list, and you will see what I'm talking about.

That last argument is merely sophistry. I cannot begin to understand what rational argument you expect me to pick from there. Dahn 22:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For number 1: maybe you should discuss with others when choosing a solution. I find that putting Wurmbrand and Ana Pauker in the same category inacceptable.

For number 2: you said, I cite:

if we are to exclude from the lists communists who did not hold party ranks, although being its activists in the strictest of senses, we would have to exclude Haia Lifschitz, Ilie Pintilie, Olga Bancic, Solomon Tinkelman, Gilbert Moscovici, N. D. Cocea, Vasile Roaită and probably others

Dpotop 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not saying that you designed this list to make accusations. I'm suggesting that categorizing needs to be refined to allow proper classification of some people such as Wurmbrand and Paunescu. Dpotop 22:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

For 1: they belong together for having both been active members of the Romanian Communist Party during a period when ideological choices were the obvious criterion. All you protest relies on the shaky and POV assumption that this has or should have negative connotations. It is neither irrelevant nor obscure information about him, and does in no way diminish what he did for the rest of his life (nor would Paul be for having persecuted the Christians as a young man!); hell, it could even enhance it. Your inability to distance yourself from the subject is bewildering. For 2: no Dpotop, pay attention. All those people were members of the party. Those that were not are at the bottom of the list. Dahn 22:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is an activist?

According to Merriam-Webster:

activism=a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue

According to DEX98 (on dexonline.ro):

activist=Membru al unei organizaţii de partid sau de masă, care se consacra (exclusiv) muncii în acea organizaţie. ♢ Activist cultural = activist care lucra în domeniul vieţii culturale

The sense you want to use here is not covered. Dpotop 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Dahn 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's your job to find a source saying Paunescu corresponded to the previous definitions. :) To start, the work of Paunescu was not performed inside the party. Dpotop 17:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I challenge you to source that. Dahn 17:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Until you find a source, this is original research. Dpotop 17:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A source saying what? An answer to a specific theory that you entertain, or one that identifies Păunescu as a Communist Party cadre and supplier of propaganda? Because I have about 1,000 saying the latter, while the former is an issue you only can answer, because only you will pose it. Enough with the mind games, man. Dahn 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to have a reputable source calling Paunescu an activist. Period. Dpotop 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to note that you keep reverting Wurmbrand's inclusion, without as much as the semblance of a reason. Dahn 17:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The same for Wurmbrand. A source calling him an activist. Dpotop 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're avoiding the point and appealing to probability. Period. Dahn 17:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, allow me to give you the wider definition of the term according to NODEX: "Membru militant al unui partid sau al unei organizaţii de masă, care se ocupă cu munca politică în cadrul organizaţiei." Dahn 18:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Paunescu was not a militant member of the PCR, with political work responsibilities. Constantinescu was. Paunescu was a regular party member. If you want to say that he had communist convictions, you can put it in the article, because you'll find a source. But he was not an activist of the PCR. You could create a new category "other PCR members". Dpotop 15:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, keep pretending that you do not understand what "activist" means in both English and Romanian. Dahn 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I also wanted to avoid bringing this up, but you are currently in breach of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dahn 18:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're in breach of "No original research". Dpotop 15:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am? You provide your own interpretation of various topics, propose, based solely on some turns of phrase, a theory for inclusions on this list that would lead it back into the utter solicism and irrelevancy it used to display, and you expect me to source that you are wrong, just because you don't think you're wrong? Do at least come up with a fresh tactic, because this extended display of truthiness is tiring me. Dahn 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, "party activist" doesn't necessarily imply a full-time political organizer, but even in a tiny party it does imply someone who puts significant effort into organizing or agitation. By the way, we wouldn't usually apply it to someone whose means were primarily (for example) street-fighting or assassination (although I would apply it, reluctantly, to the person who gave the orders for such actions). It could also be loosely applied to a propagandist who was not actually an organizer or agitator. Thinking of the miscellaneous small ultra-left parties I know that are active here in Seattle, they certainly have members whom I would not characterize as activists. So I would not characterize every pre-'45 party member as an "activist". Hope that helps at least a little.

I don't find the generic "activists" list very useful, especially because it is not annotated. I'd think that we would want to identify (and many people would get more than one of these annotations):

• pre-1945 members
• people who held official party positions
• government office-holders in the era of Soviet occupation
• government office-holders post-Soviet occupation
• propagandists
• etc. (I'm sure people can think of a great number of other characteristics)

Also, it would be useful to identify anyone who left the party (or was kicked out) at any time prior to the '89 Revolution.

In short, if this gave a capsule summary of people's relation to the party, it could be a useful article. As a raw list, it might as well be a category. - Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe, would you characterize as an activist someone who went to jail for his political activities? Specifically: Doftana prison - [1]. (Note: btw, the list is a category) Dahn 21:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I know this question was for Joe, but it seems unreal. Definitions of "activist/activism" already exist in both English and Romanian. We don't redefine words here, Dahn. Dpotop 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ! What I have asked is: will someone be considered active enough in party work if that someone was singled out by the authorities and went to jail for it? Dahn 11:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to warn against an unfair assumption: the Soviet occupation of Romania, despite the nationalist Romanian POV, did not signify a policy requiring duplication inside the party (or even, in itself, inside society). No people fell from or came to office because of an end to Soviet occupation (the withdrawal happened in 1956-58; Pauker, who had always been secondary inside the party, fell from power in 1952, with Stalin's approval; Ceauşescu was an associate of Dej, who attacked Miron Constantinescu for having rejected Stalinism during the 1960s; both Stalinism and "detente" [as if] were instruments held by Gheorghiu-Dej, and Ceauşescu continued his work from precisely the point where it had been left). So, whatever we do to the list, I cannot accept that particular criterion.

So, you deny the change of position in international politics? The romanianization policies? Cool! Are you somehow suggesting that the repression of the 80's can be compared to the repression of the 50's (the same magnitude)? You should revise your history, then. Dpotop 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what the hell relevancy the Soviet withdrawal had for party membership?! Romanianization was started way before Soviet withdrawal (try 1952), and was coupled with removing those whom "Pauker had let into the party" (i.e: the Iron Guard, whom I suppose you would not consider "Romanian enough"). And I will not take lessons in history from someone who is not aware of that, thank you very much. Dahn 11:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed to simply differentiate between pre- and post-1948 party members myself. For the former, including all articles on members would be relevant; for the latter, just some. As I look at it, this, and any other chronological criterion is unfeasible (I have asked people to consider the example of Scarlat Calimachi; I will add that there are many others for whom the actual moment of adherence to the party is destined to remain unknown - it was unrecorded or is too obscure).

I am getting quite frustrated over the fact that my points hav been misunderstood. For starters, people familiar with my style should know by now that I only leave to subjective interpretations only that which I could find no other way to express. I assure you that, as we stand,this is very most likely the case (many other things could, in theory, be done to this list's format; very few will actually work, given the inclusions). Dahn 22:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your points have been understood. But not everybody accepts your re-definition of the words "activist/activism". And I am getting frustrated, too, because you refuse to explain how on Earth Wurmbrand and Paunescu fit into the Merriam-Webster and DEX definitions of "activist", while Constantinescu (who was actually charged with propaganda) doesn't. This is blatantly biased. Dpotop 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have answered about three times, and gave you the full DEX definition (not that it would matter what the DEX definition is on an English site!). Dahn 11:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that I understand your desire to associate Paunescu and Wurmbrand with the Communist Party of Romania. They fit a new section "Other notable party members". But they were not activists. Dpotop 08:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I have answered on that point as well, but you apparently refuse reading all of what I post. Read it here, because I will not be repeating myself: your "solution" is moving from one apparently subjective criterion to a definitely subjective one ("notable" for whom? I don't want to make this list dependent on anybody's POV!). Dahn 11:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

For now, I see it as your POV, including your own definition of "activist". Dpotop 13:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. From now on, I will answer to you only when you bother speaking to the point. Dahn 15:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer Dahn's question: I think not. In the U.S., people went to prison supposedly for Communist activities who turned out in some cases not even to be party members and in other cases to be people who joined it more like a social club than with serious political intent. It's hard to imagine that nothing of the sort every happened under any of the heavyhanded regimes in Romania in the relevant period. I think Dpotop is probably right here with his suggestion "Other notable party members". - Jmabel | Talk

Well, no heavyhanded regime in Romania until Antonescu rounded up communist sympathizers, and not all party members went to prison. The subject of investigation in Wurmbrand's case was his activity in support for the party, and, if I remember correctly from the Mari Români show, he was repeatedly interrogated to incriminate Pătrăşcanu (which he eventually did) - this also confirms that nobody was plucked off the streets without evidence of political involvement. To my knowledge, Wurmbrand never denied that he was a committed and clandestinely active communist, so Dpotop is calling on us to be more Catholic than the Pope.

The main problem with Dpotop's proposal (as with all such proposals) is that it focuses on one boundary - ignoring the fact that it is virtually unbound on all other sides. What does "notable" mean? Aren't Emil Constantinescu, Paul Goma, Traian Băsescu, Adrian Năstase etc. "notable"? But the very point of inclusions on this list was to drop mentions of people who were party members, but were not relevant for the party (in that special Romanian context...). So, then, Dpotop is simply shifting the same problem back in its original place. On the other hand, if we all agree not to expand the list to cover as much ground (thousands of people, btw), then we should come up with a criterion for those whom we do include; calling those people whose political activity was relevant for the party "activists" would not be problematic (given the extended version of the term in both English and Romanian, in contradiction only with the antiquated Romanian version), and, if anything, debates on the matter would be much, much more reduced in comparison with those sparked by inclusions according to Dpotop's unruly theory. Dahn 12:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You accuse myself of proposing subjective criteria, whereas it is indeed you who pushes subjective POVs. My position is that the Romanian Communist Party structures offer the only objective criteria for classifying Romanian communists. You have clases of:

1. party members
2. party activists (in Romanian "activul de partid", quite well defined)
3. party members from before 1945
4. party members belonging to various ethnic groups, or originating in other countries, such as the Soviet Union.
5. former prime-secretaries, Central Committee members, members of the MAN (the Communist parliament)
6. former chiefs/employees of heavily politized structures such as newspapers, the Securitate, etc.
7. etc.

Coming here and claiming that Dahn is the measure of party affiliation in Communist Romania is unacceptable. It is certainly not NPOV. Nice to see I'm not the only one to see it. Dpotop 12:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were to actually research what you claim would work, you will see why it does not. All those "classes" are not feasible, and several are artificial. What say you actually take out a piece of paper at home, write down the names, and then,using the criteria you mention, try to carry out the task using available and reliable sources. Let me know how that turns out. Dahn 13:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: A workable thing, at least in the near future, would be to individually list members of the Politburo and Central Committee. However, it may not even possible to create an adequate category of Politburo members, since few agree on who was on which of the Politburos in the 1930! (that is the kind of common sense information that was not made clear by the party itself, and Dpotop should look into it, instead of pushing and pulling on the issue of what "could be done"; in any case, if this is feasible or not is still irrelevant to the audacity of asking that I should be trying to find obscure information on something about which even the proponent hardly cares about, and about which he was merely speculating!). Dahn 14:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Qualify and clarify

I suspect that, other than the general secretaries of the party, most of these names could use (1) a citation and (2) an explanation (possibly accomplished in some cases by grouping the names) of what was their relation to the Party. - Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)