Talk:Alexandra Kollontai/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article contradicts itself

At the beginning it says she was the first female ambassador in 1943. Under the "Revolutionary Career" section it states she became an ambassador to Norway in 1923. Assuming the latter is actually correct shouldn't the former be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.231.75 (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure she was not the first women ambassador

"In 1923, she became the world's first woman ambassador, serving in Norway, and later in Mexico and Sweden;"

To the best of my knowledge, she was beaten by a few years by Diana Abgar, who served as Ambassador to Japan of the Republic of Armenia (circa 1919). There may be others also. It's better to be careful with statements such as First, best, worst ...

I edited the article accordingly. Also changed When to As, since Stalin had not consolidated his power by 1923. 24.126.41.116 16:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) aka [[User:Italo Svevo]

According to my information, "Diana Abgar a prominent public and political figure, was appointed diplomatic consul of the Republic of Armenia in Japan. She had become a first woman representing Armenia at the international level." That is, she was a senior diplomatic figure, but not an Ambassador as such. As far as I know, Kollontai still holds the record for women ambassadors. Cheers JackofOz 06:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Further info: "Diana Agabeg Apcar: Armenia's Consul to Japan - 1920. Appointed by the first Armenian Republic (1918-1920), she was most probably the first woman to hold such a position anywhere.

Known for her patriotic humanitarianism, she helped thousands of Armenian refugees of the Turkish massacres to pass via Japan into the United States." That is, she was not an Ambassadress, but a Consul, a position of lower rank. Cheers JackofOz 06:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

According to my sources Kollontai didn't become an ambassador until 1943. Before that she was "just a diplomat". [1]

Ostrobothnian 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian B (talk • contribs)

There were at least two earlier women ambassadors: Rosika Schwimmer (Hugary-to-Switzerland, 1918) and Ruth Bryan Owen (United States-to-Denmark, 1933).--Pharos (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What the heck does "served himself lavishly" mean?

I refer to this sentence near the end of the article: "Kollontai was awarded the Order of the Aztec Eagle on the basis of her friendship with Mexican Presidents Lázaro Cárdenas del Río (May 21, 1895 – October 19, 1970), who served himself lavishly between 1934 and 1940, and Manuel Ávila Camacho (April 24, 1897 – October 13, 1955), who also served himself very large portions between 1940 and 1946."

I just don't have a clue what this means, and even if everyone else does, it seems some kind of context would be warranted.98.198.209.158 (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit that inserted those words. A peek at User:Jameselmo's talk page tells me he is having some trouble understanding Wikipedia's rules. On that basis, I consider it to be vandalism. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and treat it as if it were meant as a joke. But vandalism it is, and so out it goes. -- JackofOz (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sublevate?

"She went into exile after publishing "Finland and Socialism", which called on the Finnish people to sublevate against oppression within the Russian Empire." As far as I can tell, there's no such word.

-AL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.64.242 (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Heavy rewrite needed?

I've prettied up the format and beefed up the bibliography and reading list. This article could stand a top-to-bottom just to get things prettied up and sourced out better. It's not a bad article as it sits, but there's certainly room for it to be significantly improved if someone spends a few days with it. — Tim Davenport /// Early American Marxism website //// Corvallis, OR Carrite (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind. This is NOT a good article and it needs a heavy rewrite for sure. People need to stick to real history books and not cornball melodramatic potboilers; the bit on Dybenko is farcically bad. Carrite (talk) 04:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so what *does* "free love" mean here???

The article states: "Kollontai also raised eyebrows with her strong promotion of free love. However, this does not mean that she advocated casual sexual encounters; . . ."

This paragraph goes on to say what "free love" does not mean, corrects a statement erroneously attributed to Kollontai, and the states the reason for Kollontai's views on free love: "[S]he believed that true socialism could not be achieved without a radical change in attitudes to sexuality, so that it might be freed from the oppressive norms that she saw as a continuation of bourgeois ideas about property."

But a radical change from what to what??? Nowhere does this paragraph say what her views on free love actually were. How about some knowledgeable person's filling in this particular blank? (Otherwise I recommend that the entire paragraph be deleted for lack of substance.)Daqu (talk) 03:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

1. She's mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_polyamorists — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvenAERTS (talk • contribs) 23:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Article needs work

Hi, I took an interest in this article, and find there are some weasel words, and other issues such as conflicting statements. I've spent the last hour or so looking up some source to help this article. I was just going to take it as needing help, but after reading some of the sources, took more of an interest. But, I don't have a lot of time, and often I find that I want to work on Wikipedia, only to get busy in real life and I've not done anything of substance to contribute on this site. I'm still going to add some clean-up templates just in case it helps draw attention from others who are more committed and more knowledgeable. If anyone objects to the template I add, I understand that anyone can edit. I hope I am able to help more often myself, and will come back, if anything, to add the sources I've collected if I'm not able to re-write parts of the article myself. Feedback is always welcome. Thank you. RupJana (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Swedish or Norwegian?

Confused: as ambassador in Norway, seeking friendship of Norway by appeasing a Swedish delegation?

... soon after the revolution, she was ambassador in Norway, who had recognized the Soviet Union, but de facto, not de jure; now, the formal recognition was what interested the Soviet authorities. In this delicate situation, came a delegation from Russia to sell a large quantity of timber. The Swedes offered a very low price; when she noted that the negotiation was at a standstill, she said: "These gentlemen don't have the mandate to accept such a low price; neither have I; but the friendship of Norway is so important for us, that I will pay the difference." The Swedish delegation retired to consult, after which they said: "We are not so impolite to accept your offer; we accept the Russian price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahzuhzaz (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I noticed that too. Also a couple other claims to be confusing in this article. I've just posted my own comment here (below). I collected some links with information about this woman, and hope they can be used to help fix some of the inconsistencies. I'm also as I said in my comment, use templates to show there are problems to help draw more eyes to this project. I also think the tone is wrong, as I found a lot of 'weasel words' in one section, at least. Thanks. RupJana (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The 'first' female

I don't think these claims are correct. I added dubious to both, when after doing some research I couldn't find anything to be able to tell which was correct, or if there needed to be a total rewrite of the intro. Some sources claim that Rosika Schwimmer was the first ambassador and or minister. here and maybe here From this source Kollonti was "Elected to Central Committee in 1917 and Commissar for Social Welfare in the Soviet government." http://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/into.htm , but she also did many other things before that, but as for "first in the world" , I think the claim is dubious.

I'll try to find more. I have to go now for real life, this is hard work. Thanks to all who help here at this and other articles. Bye for now. PS. Sorry if I'm unclear, but I'm rushed and am not comfortable yet with the workings of Wikipedia, and it takes up a lot time away from the subject. I just didn't want to mark up the page without some explanation for it. Thanks again. Sorry.RupJana (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Relative to Hugo Kołłątaj?

Was Alexandra Kollontai - [Олександра Коллонтай] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help), [Александра Коллонтай] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) - a relative to Hugo Kołłątaj - [Гуго Коллонтай] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) ? --85.76.107.154 (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Colontai is not a feminist

Colontai is not a feminist!

The feminists answer our criticisms by saying: even if the arguments behind our defence of the political rights of women seem to you mistaken, is the importance of the demand itself, which is equally urgent for feminists and for representatives of the working class, thereby reduced? Cannot the women of the two social camps, for the sake of their common political aspirations, surmount the barriers of class antagonism that divide them? Surely they are capable of waging a common struggle against the hostile forces that surround them? Division between bourgeois and proletarian is inevitable as far as other questions are concerned, but in the case of this particular question, the feminists imagine,, the women of the various social classes have no differences.

Feminists keep returning to these arguments with bitterness and bewilderment, seeing preconceived notions of partisan loyalty in the refusal of representatives of the working class to join forces with them in the struggle for women’s political rights. Is this really the case?

Is there a complete identity of political aspirations, or does antagonism hinder the creation of an indivisible, above-class army of women in this instance as in all others? We have to answer this question before we can outline the tactics that proletarian women will employ in winning political rights for their sex.

The feminists declare themselves to be on the side of social reform, and some of them even say they are in favour of socialism – in the far distant future, of course – but they are not intending to struggle in the ranks of the working class for the realisation of these aims. The best of them believe, with a naive sincerity, that once the deputies’ seats are within their reach they will be able to cure the social sores which have in their view developed because men, with their inherent egoism, have been masters of the situation. However good the intentions of individual groups of feminists towards the proletariat, whenever the question of class struggle has been posed they have left the battlefield in a fright. They find that they do not wish to interfere in alien causes, and prefer to retire to their bourgeois liberalism which is so comfortably familiar.

No, however much the bourgeois feminists try to repress the true aim of their political desires, however much they assure their younger sisters that involvement in political life promises immeasurable benefits for the women of the working class, the bourgeois spirit that pervades the whole feminist movement gives a class colouring even to the demand for equal political rights with men, which would seem to be a general women’s demand. Different aims and understandings of how political rights are to be used create an unbridgeable gulf between bourgeois and proletarian women. This does not contradict the fact that the immediate tasks of the two groups of women coincide to a certain degree, for the representatives of all classes which have received access to political power strive above all to achieve a review of the civil code, which in every country, to a greater or lesser extent, discriminates against women. Women press for legal changes that create more favourable conditions of labour for themselves; they stand together against the regulations legalising prostitution etc. However, the coincidence of these immediate tasks is of a purely formal nature. For class interest determines that the attitude of the two groups to these reforms is sharply contradictory. ...

Class instinct – whatever the feminists say – always shows itself to be more powerful than the noble enthusiasms of “above-class” politics. So long as the bourgeois women and their “younger sisters” are equal in their inequality, the former can, with complete sincerity, make great efforts to defend the general interests of women. But once the barrier is down and the bourgeois women have received access to political activity, the recent defenders of the “rights of all women” become enthusiastic defenders of the privileges of their class, content to leave the younger sisters with no rights at all. Thus, when the feminists talk to working women about the need for a common struggle to realise some “general women’s” principle, women of the working class are naturally distrustful. -Alexandra Kollontai (1909). The Social Basis of the Woman Question

Respect Colontai's claim!

--59.6.55.82 (talk)13 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear User 59.6.55.82, you and/or somebody else removed twice sourced information from the article; which does not fall within the Wikipedia Five Pillars. The part you removed does not state Kollontai was or was not a feminist (whatever it may mean), but it just reports she "has ... been regarded as a key figure in Marxist feminism", which is undoubtedly stated by all the sources I know. Should any other reliable sources state differently, you might add their statements to the article citing authors, but you are not allowed to substitute your own opinion, i.e. your original research (however well founded it may seem to you), for different sourced information. Accordingly, I am going to restore again the sourced information about Kollontai being considered a Marxist feminist as it corresponds to historians' statements for the last seventy years and needs to be mentioned in a good encyclopedia entry.--Jeanambr (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I also still believe the long quotation you have added from The Social Basis of the Woman Question is by far excessive and might be more appropriately placed in Wikiquote, a Wikiquote template already informing readers that there are relevant quotations regarding the subject. As regards its contents, in spite of appearances they do not prove Kollontai was not a feminist, if I may express my humble opinion. In her text she either targets "feminists" or "bourgeois feminists": is she referring to two different groups? Indeed, she is only attacking liberal feminists sometimes disparagingly termed bourgeois. So, if feminism "is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social equality of sexes" (incipit of the Wikipedia article), her text only shows that she was not a liberal feminist. Apart from (my) personal opinions, however, the fact remains that she has generally been regarded as a leading Marxist feminist.--Jeanambr (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the reference to Marxist feminism, but I have also added a bitter criticism of Kollontai's feminism by Professor Simon Karlinsky.--Jeanambr (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Anecdotes section

What should be done with the Anecdotes section? While the stories are amusing, they aren't particularly well-cited, and they seem to portray rather minor episodes of Kollontai's life. @Jeanambr: I would remove them myself, but I wanted to make sure you weren't planning on integrating them at some point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I agree the section should be removed. I've found three more sources and I'm reading them in hope I can improve the article, but I don't think I could improve the section anyhow. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Children Mikhail Alekseevich Domontovich ?

Hello,

A reference to her son , I cannot find that reference anywhere

Children Mikhail Alekseevich Domontovich

Ingo Johansson (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ingo Johansson: The name of Alexandra Kollontai's son was Mikhail Vladimirovich Kollontai: he was born in 1894 a legitimate child of a married couple (Clements, p. 16) and so he bore his father's surname. He died in Sweden during the Second World War (Clements, pp. 265 and 270). Mikhail Alekseevich Domontovich was Alexandra's father and she was his only child.--Jeanambr (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Labour Party

She then paid a visit to England, where she met members of the British Labour Party. She returned to Russia in 1899...

The Labour Party was not launched until 1900. You must mean the Independent Labour Party (Keir Hardie). Valetude (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You are right: I have modified the statement referring to a generic socialist movement and mentioning the two main exponents she met.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"Survive the Stalinist Purges"

Original: "She was the only member of the Bolsheviks' Central Committee that had led the October Revolution that managed to survive the Stalinist purges other than Stalin himself."

This needs revision, as even the footnote suggests that many of the original members were in fact not killed as a result of "Stalinist purges" which this language suggests. In fact, considering the deaths of several of the other members were not killed as a result of political purges, I'm removing the reference entirely, as it's a clear case of false representation: "Apart from Stalin and Kollontai, there were 19 members in the Central Committee at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution: two of them were killed by counter-revolutionaries; five, including Lenin, died natural deaths before Stalin's accession to power; the twelve left fell all victims of Stalinist repression, including Trotsky who was assassinated in Mexico." It's also unstated who the other 11 are, apart from Trotsky, so the reference itself is rather incomplete.

The "Stalinist purges" are also irrelevant here as they did not affect her.

Updated: "She was the only member of the Bolsheviks' Central Committee that had led the October Revolution that managed to live into the early 1950s, other than Stalin himself." Alaks Hovel 23:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I could even admit the statement as updated by Alaks Hovel is more precise, but it does not account for the fact that Kollontai was the only one of the October Central Committee members still alive in the 1930s not to be executed by Stalin; which seems to me a remarkable fact worth mentioning.

Furthermore, in the current drafting, Alaks Hovel 's statement no longer relies on any cited source, while the footnote he has removed did not surely contain any false representation, but only accurate factual statements about the number of the October Central Committee members and their fates. It was duly sourced by citing the e-book it was drawn from: an essay by Italian historian it:Antonio Moscato, a long-time professor at the University of Salento. Therefore, I'm going to restore the footnote hoping someone else will also revise the statement as modified by Alaks Hovel.--Jeanambr (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Even though we are not usually supposed to check reliable sources, following the above I have tried to verify the data given by Professor Moscato and I ascertained that another ex member of the October Central Committee, Matvei Muranov, did also escape purges, outliving all his former colleagues until 1959. I am going to modify again the article accordingly.--Jeanambr (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The quoted source previous held that several of the people who died did so of causes completely unrelated to the "Great Terror" so it was misleading, and actually "in the 1930s not to be executed by Stalin" is an inaccurate claim considering even the removed source spoke against that notion. Alaks Hovel 05:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A true feminist. Stalin killed her second husband. But she worshiped him publicly till the end.--213.147.165.24 (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Failed confiscation of the Alexander Newsky Monastery (Lavra)

In January 1918, People's Commissar of Social Welfare Kollontai ordered armed soldiers from the Soviet Navy to confiscate the Alexander Newsky Monastery, but they were met by a religious procession of of around 500,000 local worshipers, and after some fighting a priest was shot and killed.--213.147.165.24 (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)