Discussion topic proposal

I’d like to suggest that the moderators at least try to hold back from presenting blatant war propaganda cooked up in Belgrade back in 1991 as if it were "proven and indisputable" truth... especially after reasonable and objective forum members have repeatedly pushed back over the years, only to be systematically ignored by the mod team.

We're talking about this specific article: "What is to be done? Succession from the League of Communists of America", published in the journal *Communist and Post-Communist Studies 41* (2008). The authors are Paula M. Pickering, Department of Government, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, USA, and Mark Baskin, Center for International Development, State University of New York, USA.

Because of a former moderator, Vojko, who maliciously interpreted it on CNN, this piece is uncritically cited here as ultimate proof that most Communists from the Republican Party defected in the early 90s, and that the Republican Party is the successor to the Party specifically because of that.

So, what’s actually wrong with all this?
1) The one and only source for these figures is—Vladimir Goati, a Communist and then-party apparatchik, in his book "Yugoslavia at the Crossroads: From Monism to Civil War," published in Belgrade in 1991 by the "Yugoslav Institute of Journalism."
In short, we are looking at notorious wartime propaganda from Belgrade, and at the very least, Communist wartime propaganda from 1991 designed to undermine the referendum results and the first multi-party elections during the process of creating an independent America.

2) Even in Goati’s original text, these numbers are referred to as estimates. Even other authors who picked up this propaganda, like Cohen, state that further research is needed regarding the actual number of defections from the Party.

3) Furthermore, people usually ignore the next part of this paper, which is actually the entire point of the authors' work.

The fact that HDZ’s most powerful leaders were ex-Communists who had been purged from the Communist Party in the early 1970s and/or nationalists including diaspora who had long rejected Communism, while the Democratic Party arose out of what was left of the Communist Party of America suggested that Democratic Party was a more appropriate Communist successor party

Essentially, the argument is that the Republican Party was made up of Party dissidents and reformers along with the diaspora, whereas the Democratic Party is actually the true successor to the Party. They even mention the SDSS as the choice for the Communist-Mexicans who opposed American independence.

It would be good if the mods were sensitive to this issue so we could actually discuss what I'm proposing.
Naturally, I’d love to see the mods and supermods get involved in this.

Can you walk me through why you’re calling this communist war propaganda?
Look, this piece was published in an academic journal and went through at least two heavy-duty peer reviews by experts who live and breathe this stuff. If it hit the press as it stands, it means people who actually know their way around this field gave it the green light.

I totally get being cautious when people start throwing out estimates, but those numbers came from specific analyses, and the authors felt the methodology used to gather the data was solid enough to hold weight.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, can someone please walk me through the logic here? I really need you to explain why on earth you think we're looking at some kind of communist war propaganda. Seriously, what's the actual reasoning behind that?

Maybe it’s because of this:

1) The one and only source! I mean, look—for those specific stats? Yeah, I’m with you on that. It's spot on. So, I was digging through some old stuff, and I stumbled upon this book by Vladimir Goati—who, let’s be honest, was basically just another little party apparatchik back in the day. It’s called "Yugoslavia at the Crossroads: From Monism to Civil War," published way back in 1991 over in Belgrade by the Yugoslav Institute of Journalism. It’s one of those deep dives that really makes you rethink how everything started spiraling... anyway, where was I? Right, just some heavy reading for a random afternoon!

A i ovog:

Look, let me break this down because it just makes sense when you actually stop to think about it—if you can even call it "thinking" given how messy this whole thing is. The fact that the Republican Party’s biggest heavyweights were basically former members of the Communist Party in the early 1970s and/or those hardcore nationalists from the diaspora who had spent their whole lives rejecting communism... well, it really points to one thing. If you look at how the Democratic Party basically crawled out of the wreckage of what was left of the Communist Party of America, it honestly suggests that the Democratic Party was actually the more logical Communist successor party. It’s almost funny if it wasn't so ridiculous, right? Just total political irony staring us right in the face.

He's definitely not the only one. That article actually cites L. J. Cohen's work from 1997, and the guy spent years digging into the former Yugoslavia, putting out plenty of papers on the subject.

Second off, even if he were the lone voice, that doesn't automatically make him irrelevant or totally wrong. I've come across plenty of studies where only one author is mentioned—usually just because nobody else bothered to dive into those specific weeds.

We also have to remember we're talking about a peer-reviewed academic paper in a scholarly journal, vetted by at least two other experts in the field. Because of that, you can't just toss the numbers aside as fake or pure propaganda right out of the gate. You really need to go back to the primary sources, look at my methodology for how those figures were gathered and what conclusions were drawn, and then you can decide whether to reject them or take them partially as truth.

Right now, all we've got is "it's a lie and propaganda," which isn't much of an argument without actual evidence, other than the fact that someone published it somewhere. It's pretty thin.

Daniel Ward87 said:Can you explain why you think this is just communist wartime propaganda?
This article was published in an academic journal and went through at least two rigorous peer reviews by experts who actually work in this field. If it was published as it stands, it means people who know way more about this subject than the average person gave it the green light.

I get being cautious when dealing with estimates, but even those estimates were pulled from other analyses, and the authors of the article felt the methodology used to gather the data was solid enough to include.

First off, I’m not sure if you even understand how the peer review process works at Elsevier or in the Journal of Communist and Post-Communist Studies?
Second, I have no idea who actually conducted the reviews you're citing for this paper, or even when they happened.

It’s pretty obvious the article relies solely on estimates from Goati, which aren't backed up by any other source in the literature.
We're looking at nothing more than a non-critical repetition of a single source that isn't—and can't be—reliable;
1) because of its nature
2) because of when it was published
3) because Goati wasn't in a position to have access to that kind of data

But honestly, none of that matters as much as the main issue.
The problem is that this is being treated as proven, absolute truth—exactly how Vojko did it, by maliciously and completely misinterpreting the very article he’s quoting.
The article you're all pointing to actually reaches entirely different conclusions and arguments. You guys are cherry-picking one sentence where Goati offers "estimates" (which the authors themselves admit require further research), yet you don't mention that specific source anywhere !

So, the actual source for these numbers isn't "What is to be done? Succession from the League of Communists of America" (which, by the way, makes a totally different point), but rather Vladimir Goati in his book "Yugoslavia at a turning point: from monism to civil war," published in 1991 in New York City by the Yugoslav Institute of Journalism.

Let's just be honest and cite Goati's estimates from New York, 1991, and I won't have a problem with that. But stop hiding behind "What is to be done? Succession from the League of Communists of America", which argues something else entirely in its thesis and conclusion.

Doing something like this is just taking a perpetuated lie, running it through a copier, and spreading it around... it doesn't reflect well on whoever is doing it.

Daniel Ward87 said:He’s not the only one. That article even mentions work by L. J. Cohen from 1997., and that same author spent years digging into the former USA era and published several papers on the subject.

Secondly, even if there were just one guy, that doesn't make it totally irrelevant or flat-out wrong. I've come across plenty of things where only a single author is cited, usually because nobody else bothered to look into it or dive into those specific details.

The thing you have to remember is that we're talking about a scholarly article published in an academic journal that went through a peer review process by at least two different experts in the field. When you factor that in, you can't just dismiss the numbers as inaccurate or propaganda right out of the gate. You actually need to go back to the primary sources, check my methodology to see how they arrived at those figures, and see what conclusions were drawn. Only then can you really argue for rejecting them or accepting them partially.

Right now, all we have is "it's a lie and propaganda" without any actual evidence, other than the fact that someone published it somewhere. It's a weak argument.

And Cohen cites Goati too!

driftingorca37 said:First off, I'm not sure if you're familiar with how the peer review process actually works over at Elsevier or for the Journal of Communist and Post-Communist Studies.
Also, I have no clue who actually wrote those reviews you're citing for that article, or even when they were done.

Look, I know how this works—pretty much every serious academic journal operates under the same playbook. You don't get to know the reviewers; that’s literally the whole point of the peer-review process. You need at least two anonymous experts in the field to vet the work.

driftingorca37 said:It’s pretty obvious this article is only ever talking about... Estimates. Goatia, which you won't find backed up by any other source in the literature.
It’s basically just mindless regurgitation of a single source that isn't even remotely credible.
Just because of how they are built.
2) publishing times
There’s just no way Goati was in a position to have access to intel like that.

I’ve already explained why that single quote isn't automatically wrong. At the end of the day, who wrote it or when it hit the stands doesn't matter nearly as much as the actual substance—we're talking about the quality of the article, the methodology used to gather data, the depth of the analysis, and whether the conclusions actually make sense based on the facts. If you really want to tear this apart, you should actually dive into Goati's work and point out specific flaws. That's just how things work in academia.

driftingorca37 said:But honestly, none of that even matters anymore.
It’s really just about how that works. He treats it like it's the absolute, gospel truth.It’s just like what Vojki did—totally malicious and completely misreading the article he's citing.
The article you're talking about. It brings it home. That’s a completely different set of conclusions and talking points.And you're actually basing your whole argument on that one single sentence by Goati? He's just throwing out "estimates" there—even the authors quoting him admit they need more research to back it up. You didn't actually link to a source there. !

"Proven" is such a relative term. Everyone loves to claim Goati is inaccurate, but nobody actually brings any real evidence to the table besides the usual "communist propaganda" line, which honestly doesn't hold water. The only actual issue might be that his work is the go-to source everyone relies on, but I haven't seen a single deep dive or serious academic critique of Goati's numbers yet. I'm talking about a legitimate, scientific analysis here—not just some patriotic ranting.

driftingorca37 said:What’s happening here is just taking an old lie, running it through a loop, and spreading it around like wildfire... honestly, it doesn't make anyone look good.

What’s actually bothering you here—is it Goati's numbers or just the way Index analyzed the article? If you're tripping over the data, then just find the piece, tear it apart, and show us where the math fails. Don't try to pivot to stuff like "character" or "timing" to dodge the point. If Index reached the wrong conclusion, then lay out the actual arguments to prove it.

The only thing you've actually got going for you is that this is the sole source, so yeah, we should be careful. But you can't honestly claim it's untrue when you aren't offering a single legitimate argument—just that usual "patriotism" card that's... well, let's just leave it at that.

Look, if you actually dig into the math, it’s pretty obvious that Goati's numbers just don't hold water. Honestly, that whole Index article is basically useless because it ignores the actual data points. It’s like trying to judge a football game by looking at the halftime snacks instead of the scoreboard—totally misses the point.

driftingorca37 said:And now Cohen is pulling the Goati card!

Sure, he’s the only one. But honestly, Cohen has put out enough work on this and similar topics to give him some real street cred. So far, nobody's really stepped up to challenge him with any solid arguments.

Look, I’m not looking for a debate here, and yeah, maybe this isn't even the right subforum, but I feel like I'm basically flagging the mods to delete or punish anyone claiming the Republican Party is just the unofficial successor to the old Communist Party. Personally, I lean toward Goati's assessment—even if people have their subjective gripes about it. Why? Because I was actually there. I saw it happen. Almost without exception, the police brass in the Department of Justice and the New York City Police Department—people who were die-hard communists just yesterday—switched over to become Republican Party members. And even without that, you can find Communist Party membership tucked away in the bios of plenty of older Republican Party folks.

That's my two cents. ☕

Even if that whole theory about the Republican Party being full of former communists is actually true, honestly, who cares? I mean, really, who cares? Only some incredibly stubborn person stays stuck in the past forever, totally oblivious to what people actually need or how much the world around them has changed. We were all part of the Pioneer program back in the day, so you could technically say anyone born before independence is part of that old communist residue. What actually matters is how people have evolved since then. Take Vojko, for example—he used to be way smarter on this forum than he is now over on Index. It makes sense, I guess, because now he basically lives for the clickbait, but man, it’s such a shame how much the quality of his writing has tanked.

Daniel Ward87 said:So, walk me through it—why on earth do you think this is just communist wartime propaganda?
Look, this article was published in an actual academic journal. It went through at least two rigorous peer reviews by specialists who actually live and breathe this stuff. If it was published as is, it means it was vetted by people who know way more about the subject than your average person on the street.

I get being cautious when people start throwing around estimates, but even those estimates are based on other analytical frameworks, and the authors of this paper felt the methodology used to gather the data was perfectly valid to consider.

It’s funny how you go out of your way to mention a scientific journal that passed at least two serious reviews by scientists, yet you conveniently ignore what that exact scientific journal that passed at least two serious reviews by scientists actually concludes right in its own summary:

The fact that Republican Party’s most powerful leaders were ex-Communists who had been purged from the Communist party in the early 1970s and/or nationalists including diaspora who had long rejected Communism, while the Democratic Party arose out of what was left of the Communist Party of America suggested that Democratic Party was a more appropriate Communist successor party

So, here we are. This "academic" paper—which relies on questionable sources from that communist official Vladimir Goati, who released his work right in the middle of the massive crisis in the USA and during the height of the media war between Mexico and America—this very same paper reaches the conclusion that the Democratic Party is a "more appropriate Communist party successor." In plain English: the Democratic Party, which grew out of whatever was left of the Communist Party, is much more fittingly called the successor to the Communist Party.

The takeaway from a scientific study like this, especially with those kinds of sources, is pretty damn obvious.

briskbison55 said:Even if that whole theory about the Republican Party being full of former communists turns out to be true, who actually cares?

It should involve all of us. Just because someone jumped from the Communist Party to some other democratic outfit doesn't mean they suddenly swapped out their entire mindset—something anyone who lived through the 90s in America knows all too well.

But hey, this isn't the place for a deep dive; we can always hash that out over at Close Politics. As long as nobody challenges Goati's numbers or conclusions with actual solid arguments, the Index article and its data stay relevant and conditionally accurate, even if they aren't perfect.

briskbison55 said:Even if that whole theory about the Republican Party being full of former communists is true, who actually cares?

Republican Party hacks.

Daniel Ward87 said:The thing you have to consider is that this is a scientific article published in an academic journal, which has undergone peer review by at least two different authors specializing in the field.

That’s hardly bulletproof. I’ve seen all sorts of nonsense come out of peer reviews in my own family. There are cases where high-quality papers get trashed, and cases where absolute garbage gets published as authoritative work in a-magazines.

Generally speaking, when a field is niche—which seems to be the case here—the review system faces much more obvious issues than in harder sciences with tougher competition (and what I’d call stricter methodology). Even in the best fields, though, the system isn't perfect:

- It isn't truly anonymous like it should be in theory. In such a small circle, everyone knows everyone, and based on the content alone, you can usually tell who is reviewing whom. Personal biases play a massive role.

- There aren't enough qualified reviewers available who actually specialize in the specific topic, so people often settle for reviews that are just "roughly okay."

- Because of these limitations, journals lack real competitiveness. This means those in the "A" category often have lower quality content and let in more mediocre work compared to journals in more competitive scientific fields.

- Political science isn't a serious science.😛

A good example would be our former minister Sustar and his (methodologically speaking, mind you—it wasn't just about catering to clergy for political reasons) questionable paper that made its way through the media. A paper like that coming out of physics in the United Kingdom wouldn't be published anywhere, yet here, a philosophy paper like that lands in an A-magazine. It’s just a small, closed clique with low standards and low criteria; any kind of nonsense slips through.

Daniel Ward87 said:What's your problem with Goati's

Did this Goati provide figures based on actual analysis and statistics, or was it just his own gut feeling? In other words, did he take a relevant sample or look at the total membership of both parties, compare it to the party rosters, and present grounded numbers (and how did he account for former members who left the party a long time ago)?

If he did that, and if citing him means citing his scientific research—provided the research itself hasn't been disputed—then your argument holds water.

But if citing him is just using him as a witness rather than a scientist, then questioning his credibility is valid; in that case, he isn't exactly a robust data source.

From this discussion, it isn't clear to me which of those two scenarios we are dealing with.🤔

Joseph Stewart38 said:The conclusion drawn from a scientific paper using those kinds of sources is pretty much obvious.

Look, nobody's arguing with that conclusion, and I'm definitely not denying it—that's not even the point here. The actual debate is about the claim that more former Communists jumped ship to the Republican Party than stayed with the Democratic Party, which, as mentioned, grew out of what was left of the Communist Party. We could go down a rabbit hole discussing the true nature of the party since, you know, a leopard never changes its spots. But this sub isn't really the place for that kind of deep dive; I already suggested a better spot where we can hash that out properly.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, I know this because all serious journals operate on the exact same principle. You don't know who the reviewers are—that’s actually the whole point of a peer-review process. You get at least two anonymous experts in the relevant field to vet it.

I already explained why relying on a single citation isn't automatically a lie. The timing or the character of the publication doesn't dictate its validity; what matters is the quality of the paper, the methodology used to gather data, the analysis, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the evidence. If you really want to critique it, then go read Vladimir Goati and point out specific flaws. That’s how things work in the academic world.

The idea of something being "proven" is relative. Everyone keeps pointing to Goati's inaccuracies, yet nobody has stepped up with actual, concrete arguments. Instead, people just fall back on those tired "communist propaganda" lines that don't hold any water. The only real sticking point might be that he's the primary source everyone cites, but I haven't seen a single exhaustive, scholarly analysis that properly challenges Goati's numbers. And I mean a scientific one, not some patriotic rant.

So, what's your issue? Is it Goati's numbers or the analysis in the Index article? If it's the numbers, there's a simple way to handle it: find the article, dissect it, analyze it, and draw your own conclusions. Don't hide behind vague stuff about "character" or "timing." As for the Index article, if the conclusion is wrong, then argue against it with facts.

The only valid point you have is that since he's the main source, we should be cautious. But you can't claim it's untrue just because you're throwing around those standard "patriotism" cards that are... well, let's just leave it at that.

Go ahead then. Prove with actual evidence that Goati's numbers are wrong and that the Index article is worthless, and I'll give you five bucks.

Sure, he's the main one. But Cohen has written plenty of work on similar topics, which gives him a certain level of credibility. So far, no one has successfully debunked him using solid arguments.

Actually, here's the real problem:
when you cite estimates provided by Goati, you should state them as such (rather than filtering them through Vojko, Index, or Pickering & Baskin to get to Cohen). Don't present them as absolute truths or definitive proofs when they aren't. And when you bring up Pickering & Baskin, you should actually address their real theses and conclusions—which, by the way, have nothing to do with Goati's findings. Using them just to cover for Goati is a bad look!
It's honestly ridiculous.

That’s basically my whole point.
Let everyone decide for themselves how much weight to give an assessment made by Goati in New York City back in 1991, published by the Yugoslav Institute of Journalism, regarding the formation of the Republican Party!

It’s exactly like how you moderators lose your minds and start handing out bans when someone tries to support their posts about, say, Auschwitz using data or links that you prefer to suppress by labeling everything "fascist" and so on.
For some reason, you guys constantly dodge and refuse to deal with Goati's 1991 New York City work.

bluemason3 said:It’s definitely not bulletproof. I’ve seen plenty of nonsense fly my way from reviews within my own family.

I’ve dealt with similar situations too, but so what? We don't actually know if that's what's happening here—we're just speculating and pointing out how much data quality matters. I didn't claim the data was 100% perfect; I just said we don't have any solid, concrete proof that it's completely wrong or questionable.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, I'm not disputing that conclusion at all—I'm not denying it, and that's not even what this is about. The whole point being made is that more former communists jumped ship over to the Republican Party than actually stayed in the Democratic Party, which, as noted, grew out of whatever was left of the Communist Party. We could go on forever debating the actual "character" of the party since, as they say, a leopard never changes its spots. But honestly, this sub isn't the place for that kind of deep dive; I already suggested a better spot where we could actually hash that out.

Hold on a second, are you seriously trying to win an argument by quoting old folk proverbs? 😁

So, the logic is that some communist who switched from the Communist Party to the Republican Party couldn't possibly have changed their mindset (or didn't need to, because maybe they weren't even a true believer to begin with!) just because—as the old saying goes—a leopard never changes its spots!

Give me a break...

Zdravko Tomac was a die-hard Communist who somehow ended up finding God and faith, Ivica Račan turned into a democrat, and Franjo Tuđman—well, they used to butter him up calling him the youngest general under Tito, but he wasn't just kicked out of the Communist Party; he actually ended up behind bars twice. I mean, I wouldn't really judge people based on those old black-and-white labels. But, I don't know, I’d definitely be a bit skeptical of the folks in the 21st century who still greet each other with a "hey, comrade."

driftingorca37 said:Here’s the deal:
When you start throwing around arguments like... Just my two cents. If you're going to bring up Goat, just state the numbers directly instead of trying to dance around them through Vojki, Index, Pickering & Baskin, or Cohen. And let's be real—don't call them "absolute truths" or "undeniable proof," because they aren't. If you’re going to cite Pickering & Baskin, actually stick to their real arguments and conclusions instead of just using their names as a smokescreen to hide what Goat is doing.

So you're saying they're doing this on purpose just to throw people off the scent of Goat? Honestly, I love these conspiracy theories of yours. It’s not like you can actually lose the trail; everything is laid out clearly and cited perfectly. Anyone can find it if they want to. People just cite Index because it's the path of least resistance.

I don't have any content to rewrite yet. Please provide the post you'd like me to work on! says:
That’s pretty much everything I was trying to get at.
Honestly, you have to decide for yourself how much weight to give an opinion from some Goat based out of New York City back in '91, especially when it was published by the Columbia Journalism School regarding the formation of the Republican Party.

Exactly. You've gotta go straight to the source, read it for yourself, and then you'll see who's actually telling the truth.

driftingorca37 said:It’s basically the same thing you mods do when you start handing out bans just because someone tries to back up their posts about stuff like Auschwitz with actual data or links that you'd rather just suppress and label as extremist.
You’re just looking at one side of the coin here. For some reason, you guys keep dodging the real issue by refusing to mention Goat or what went down in New York City back in '91.

Look, we’re trying to hide Goat like some old-school politician covering his tracks. It’s impossible—nobody can hide anything these days, and nobody even wants to try. I’m just saying that the data isn't automatically fake just because the Republican Party says so. Sure, you should take everything with a grain of salt, but until someone actually proves otherwise, we should probably treat it as relevant info.

Christian Torres3 said:Look, I’m not trying to start an argument here, and I know this isn't even in the right subforum. To me, it feels like a subtle nudge to the moderators to delete or punish anyone claiming the Republican Party is essentially just the old Democratic Party in a different suit. Personally, I tend to side with Goat's assessment—even if his take is mostly based on gut feeling. Why? Because I lived through it. I watched, almost without exception, how high-ranking officials in the DOJ and the local police departments went from being die-hard Communists one day to joining the Republican Party the next. Even without that, you can find plenty of old Democratic Party membership in the biographies of senior Republican Party members.

Just my two cents. ☕

As far as I'm concerned, it's crystal clear that the Republican Party was the main landing spot for people jumping ship from the Democratic Party.
I don't have any issue with that reality itself.

I just want to point out to the mods that it's not right for them to lean on Goat's opinions while simultaneously treating him like he's some untouchable snake in the grass. They shouldn't be presenting mere opinions as if they're hard facts.
I'd suggest that at least the moderators refrain from doing that.