Talk:Comintern
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Comintern is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] Needs editing
This article should be edited into idiomatic English; much of it appears to have been written by someone whose native language is not English.
[edit] Old talk
This page needs a lot more info. I've made a link to a list of parties in the comintern (this may be a good way of picking out official communist parties from the unofficial ones). However I've still yet to discover a proper list of them.
I think we need some stuff about what led the comintern to be shut down. A full list of the 21 conditions would probably be good too. Secretlondon 12:07, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
There is no proper list of the sections of the Comintern. For the simple reason that the sections were never completely stable. What you will find is lists of the parties invited to the first Congress and then lists of attendees at the subsequent Congresses. You may have to dig a little. I'll add a list for the Firsat Congress if it helps you. Taken from Theses, manifestos and resolutions of the fist |four Congresses of the Comintern.
AS you mention 'orthodox communist parties' I should say that no such creature exists or existed. Again because there was never an agreed upon orthodoxy until orthodoxy was forced on the Comintern during so called Bolshevization in the 1920s. Such Bolshevization, Zinovievisation, leading to the departure of many of the founders of the various CPs. This after the departure of the Left communists who formed the Communist Workers International and before the expulsion of both the Left and right Oppositional elements who formed their own international bodies. The International Left Opposition and the International Communist Organisation respectively.
Jock Haston
[edit] Image:Comintern.JPG
I have no clue what this picture is of - If someone knows, please label accordingly x_x
By the way, Richard Chilton uploaded that pic. -_- WhisperToMe 04:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling/caps
- Why is Comintern spelled in capitals in the article title and in the text? This was not the usual English usage.
- In any case, why is the article called Comintern and not Communist International, the organisation's correct name?
Adam 10:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- 1) The spelling seems to be about half and half either way (via Google.) 2) 45,000 vs. 33,000 on Google for the abbreviation vs. the long form. -Joseph (Talk) 10:54, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
I don't think Google should be the determinant. The organisation was called the Communist International. Comintern was a Russian abbreviation which later became established jargon within the Communist parties. The article should use the correct name, with a redirect from Comintern. Adam 11:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I dunno, they used COMINTERN in my PoliSci classes. How about yours? -Joseph (Talk) 11:18, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
In capitals? I doubt that. Anyway, an encyclopaedia is not just for the petit bourgeois intelligentsia. It is for the broad masses of the proletariat and peasantry. In any case this is a very inadequate article which I will have a go at rewriting when I have time. Adam 11:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You think? Google apparently has been the deciding factor in a lot of cases. I had to live with it for reconnaissance satellite versus spy satellite, so guess what. It applies to everyone. And listen to you get all Marxist on us! I can only assume you're doing it for effect. -13:52, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)
It doesn't apply to those who insist on accurate usages. Adam 01:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Heh. That's exactly what I was trying to do. COMINTERN is at least as accurate as Communist International. Wikipedia rules are for everyone. -Joseph (Talk) 01:55, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
The entry is total rubbish at present. No use to anybody and terribly unbalanced. This was an incredibly important body for much of its history. I've not the time to begin a proper rewrite at present but I will map out a rough structure that will allow the entry to be rerwritten in easy chuncks taking into consideration its history. I would also suggest renaming Communist International as this was its proper name despite the common use of the abreviation Comintern. I would also suggest moving liusts such as the Twenty-One Conditions and lits of affiliated parties and so forth to their own entries. This will allow their reproduction in full without unbalancing this entry. Heres hoping these suggestions work for youse guys.
Jock Haston
[edit] Names of the post 1947 meetings?
While writing the History of Poland (1945-1989), I wanted to link 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (the famous one whit Chruszczew's denounciation of Stalin) but I can't even find the right name for it (20th Congress) links to US Congress session... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Title Spelled Wrong in Russian?
Compare Коммунистичекий and Kommunisticheskiy.
One of them is wrong, I think. There should either be a с added to the Russian, making Коммунистический or the final s should be removed from the romanization, Kommunistichekiy. -- tharsaile Oct 8 2005
[edit] United Nations
Have removed references to the Comintern being a precursor of the League of Nations and/or UN, or fulfilling similar functions. No idea what the basis of this claim is. Main role of Comintern was to coordinate the activities of international Communist Parties: main role of UN to facilitate cooperation and dialogue between governments of nation states. What do they have in common except the fact of being international? Mattley (Chattley) 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Alleged independence"
The section on alleged independence smacks of NPOV and original research, as well as being absurdly narrow; also most of what's there was added by someone with a rather questionable record (User:Ashton Coochter), and I'd very much appreciate knowing whether the quote is in fact legit. That said, it is a serious question, and I'm not ready to replace it with anything, so I'm not just going to delete it. Does anyone have any recommendations for sources backing up the section as currently written? Rafaelgr 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I've removed the wikilink to List of Comintern affiliate organizations, which is not in fact a list of organizations affiliated to the comintern. Rafaelgr 20:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The chapter needs to be rewritten completely. The author severly (consciously?) misinterprets Lenin's speech. To say that the Soviet government and the Comintern had an organic relationship is not the same as to say that the two bodies are the same. The Lenin speech does not point that Comintern would be a subordinate organization to the Soviet state, rather it reaffirms a rhetoric commitment that the Soviet state acted on behalf of the Communist International. --Soman 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The Comintern was an organisation completely dependent on Soviet funds, furthermore throughout its entire history the Executive Committee of the Communist International was predominantly staffed by Russians. Whilst, some semblance of independence can be seen prior to Stalin, and also in the action of Comintern on the ground, at the level of high-politics, it is clear that by the time of Stalin's rise to power, the Comintern had become subordinate to the Soviet State apparatus. The replacement of the leader of the Comintern, Piatnitsky with Trilisser (who was head of the INO (foreign Section of the NKVD) is further demonstration of this subordination. Moreover, Communists around the globe were bemoaning the fact that the Comintern was becoming nothing more than an arm of Soviet foreign policy - as seen in the speeches of Clara Zetkin, the famous German Communist, in the 1930s. The issue of alleged independence is a topic best discussed in works by E.H. Carr in his volumes on Soviet Russia. Carr demonstrates that the Comintern was not a 'monolithic entity', it was not completely under the thumb of Stalin, but its ability to deviate substantially from Stalinist lines was very slight.
Perhaps the best indication of the lack of independence of the Comintern from the Soviet State was seen in the purges that occurred under Stalin in the late 1930s - one of the best demonstrations of controlling something is the ability to destroy it - and Stalin did so with brutal force. Asmillar 20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- I broadly agree. If you even just copied that into the article, it would be a huge improvement. Rafaelgr 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
