Talk:List of Communist Parties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I think we need to split these into official communist parties and those that are 'unoffical' such as the revolutionary communists etc. Of course what constitutes offical post 1991 is an interesting point.

We then need to think about what constitutes a communist party - is it anything with communist in its name? Some of the 57 varieties of leftist have communist in their name and some don't. Should there be a separate list of trotskyist parties? Should reformed communists like the Party of Democratic Socialism be in here? Secretlondon 12:18, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Secretlondon, the grand project begins! How about we subdivide the list into parties that were officially part of Comintern; those who were part of Trotsky's Fourth International; Maoist political parties (with reference to the Sino-Soviet Split; and those that are "unofficial".

That sound a good way to proceed? Big Jim Fae Scotland

I think one problem will be that the 4th international didn't last very long. (I have the dates in a book at home) and the trotskyist left has reorganised itself lots of times since then. Of course now there are lots of organisations claiming to be the fourth international. I've seen a list of them all somewhere ;) We could group the trotskyist parties by position on the former soviet union or something (ie state caps vs workers state vs beaurocratic collectivists). We're in danger of producing trotskyist family trees, however...

I think one way of proceeding might be to categorise them like this:

  • Historic comintern parties
  • Reformed communist parties of eastern europe
  • Orthodox communist parties
  • Maoists
  • Hoxaists (I am told they are quite different from Maoists)- supporters of Enver Hoxa.
  • The three major types of trotskyist
  • Others

This is going to be a grand project :) Secretlondon 10:25, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the idea of grouping Trotskyist parties by their analysis of the Soviet Union, as some groups have changed their analysis, some have more than one analysis, a few hold views other than the three main ones (eg. that the Soviet Union didn't have a class nature, or that it was a transitional society with no fixed class structure), and groups which have been closely linked often have different analyses (eg. the WRPs state capitalism vs the American SWPs degenerated workers state). Add to that the fact that some parties have differing analyses of the Soviet Union compared with the Eastern Bloc, China and/or Cuba, and you get the point.

If the list is to be limited to Trotskyist groups with Communist in their name, I'd suggest lumping them all together, as there haven't been that many. If you intend to list all Trotskyist groups, then the best suggestion I have to categorise them by whether they adhered to the original Fourth International (or the Left Opposition before it), to the ICFI, or to another international. This would be a little arbitrary, due to the various splits and reunions, but I think it could work... otherwise perhaps just a categorisation by country or continent. Warofdreams 17:52, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

By international would probably work - using the leftist parties of the world site as a guide, perhaps. I don't think it should just include parties with communist in their title as that is pretty arbitary - why include the RCP for example apart from the name? Secretlondon 17:58, Nov 25, 2003 (UTC)

As a first step, this needs splitting into active and defunct parties. Morwen 22:33, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

A question: how is it determined which party/parties should be placed in this list? Specifically, I'm thinking of the listing of the Socialist Party of Aotearoa as New Zealand's entry. While the SPA seems as good as any other, there are plenty of communist/socialist parties in the country (see Socialism in New Zealand), and I was just wondering how one determines which should go in this list. Membership? Votes received in the last election? History? Visibility? -- Vardion 10:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Political line

At a minimum, each party here should be identified with some sort of indication of its political line. I know that this will be controversial: people will fight over which parties truly adhere to this or that line and which are revisionist or whatever. Nonetheless, I shall give this a try, using each party's own statements as a basis. This is independent of any reordering that may be done. Shorne 02:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have removed the "line" brackets. Practically all communist parties simply identify themselves as Marxist-Leninists. No communist party would call itself dengist, kimist or hoxnaist. Even most of the parties generally referred to as maoists do not brand themselves "maoist".--Soman 15:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Terms such as Dengist and Hoxhaist (or Hoxhaite) are in use. Many parties characterise themselves as Maoist. I have used that label only for parties that use it themselves.
As for reformist, you claimed that it amounted to smearing, but it is simply a description of the line that seeks reform of the current system instead of revolution. I have changed it to "non-revolutionary" by way of compromise.
I have restored some of the indications of line and changed others. Admittedly any ascription of line will be controversial, as I said yesterday, but that is better than leaving the impression of communism as a monolithic entity. Also, users who want to find, say, a Maoist or a Trotskyist party will be aided by an indication of which parties are (or claim to be) which. Shorne 16:03, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Changing "reformist" to "non-revolutionary" is still smearing to a communist. What could possible make you say that CPUSA or CPC(ML) would want to call themselves that? Hoxhnaite is a word sometimes used, but practically never in a positive sense. The pro-Albanian parties never call themselves hoxnaites, they call themselves marxist-leninist. Putting a question mark (as for the PLP) is simply ridiculous. If you can't place them in any cathegory, when don't.
Changing "Dengist" to "following Deng's line" doesn't lead anywhere. Then one could put a bracket behind practically every single party saying "Following X (name of national party leader)'s line".
And Hekmatist? How to deal with the fact that there is a separate party called WCPI(Hekmatist) besides WCPI?
Personally, I think trotskyist parties should be moved to a separate list to avoid confusions. As per other ideological tendencies within the marxist-leninist fold (pro-China, pro-Soviet, pro-Albania, etc.), classification is at many times difficult. Where to place PCdoB? Or CPI(M)?
Perhaps also one could also single out the pro-Albanian parties for a separate list, I'm not sure.
Also, I consider that the (yet incomplete) article World Communist Movement better explains differences and developments in the relations between communist parties. A list is just ought to be a list.--Soman 18:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate what you're saying. Perhaps sorting the list into some broad categories would be better. I'm not sure that I like "pro-Soviet" as a heading: would it mean the Soviet Union as it was in 1920, 1950, 1970, or 1990? Ditto for China and some other countries.
Moving Trotskyist parties to another list would probably spark a big fight, since Trotskyists seem prone to viewing others as non-Marxist.
I don't have anything to do with the labelling of two parties as Hekmatist.
As for "non-revolutionary" and "reformist", I think these labels are quite appropriate for the CPUSA and certain other parties that openly seek socialism through the ballot box. Go have a look at the CPUSA's Web page, in particular their FAQ. I don't even know why they cling to the word communist, which will only turn people in the US away. It must be for historical reasons: they've given up on revolution, but they're sort of stuck with the name.
The question mark was a mistake. I meant to come back and replace it.
Are you willing to work with me on a broad categorisation of the parties? Say something like Trotskyist, Maoist, pro-Albania, Stalinist (other than Maoist and pro-Albania), pro-Soviet (after Stalin), pro-Cuba, pro–North Korea (if there are enough of these to list), DeLeonist, other. Shorne 20:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed the Spartacists because they are Trotskyists and there are no other Trotskyist groups on the list (not just US but for any country). The parties on the list seem to all be orthodox CPs and splinters with some Maoist groups thrown in. The only exceptions are the US SWP and WWP both of which now reject Trotskyism and are very close to "Orthodox" soviet style Communism (SWP is Castroist, WWP is close to being Stalinist). If we list the Spartacists we'd also have to list all the other Trotskyist groups which would make the list quite large.

I suggest looking at this site: http://www.broadleft.org/ and the division of left parties it uses (see the left hand column under "political orientation". This list seems to accord with what Leftist Parties of the World classifies as "Communist Parties" Perhaps to better define things we should use their criteria for Communist Parties:

"The parties listed were formerly part of the so-called World Communist Movement grouped around the Soviet CPSU and still adhere to marxism-leninism. Included are also splits from parties which were formerly close to the CPSU. Some of these parties appear also on other pages as the ideological broadwidth ranges from open stalinists to parties which tend towards democratic socialism."AndyL 23:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shorne, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. There are *no* other Trotskyist parties or groups listed. The SL is the only one on the list. If I'm wrong please give me the names of other Trotskyist parties listed. Thanks. AndyL 03:21, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All right, if you count the Socialist Workers Party and Workers World as ex-Trotskyist, then the Spartacist League may be the only Trotskyist party on the list. That said, there are a lot of parties on that list that are farther removed from contemporary main-line Marxism than the Trotskyists. For example, the CPUSA doesn't even pretend to uphold revolution anymore. Why should the CPUSA get listed when the Trotskyists are not? Just because it has the word communist in its name? Similarly, the five parties listed as ruling parties are all pursuing something akin to state-capitalism.
This is why I proposed to categorise the hundreds of left-wing parties that call themselves communist. I don't think we can pass judgement here on who is and is not communist: it's an issue of POV. If we list some, I think we have to list all.
One option is to turn "List of Communist Parties" (which should be "List of communist parties") into a list of lists, with links to such things as "List of X-ist parties". Then the Trotskyist parties could all be gathered up in one place. What do you think? Shorne 02:01, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well it's not just that I classify the SWP and WWP as ex-Trotskyist, they are ex-Trotskyist by their own description. The SWP abandoned Trotskyism in the early 1980s with the publication of the article "Their Trotsky and Ours", the WWP doesn't mention Trotsky anywhere in their lit.

I think it's simpler to use the Leftist Parties of the World definition ie parties formerly groups around the CPSU and their splinters. AndyL 06:47, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why should former closeness to the CPSU be the dividing line? That's of strictly historical interest. Shorne 13:06, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because in English that's what is usually meant when one says "Communist". EG most Trotskyists in English speaking countries refer to themselves and their parties as socialist rather than Communist. AndyL 18:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of that. In any case, your definition (ties with the CPSU) would include, for example, the Communist Party of China, which split with the CPSU in 1960, but no other Maoist (or formerly Maoist) party; the CPUSA, even though it has all but renounced communism, but no newly formed party that upholds Lenin's line. Shorne 02:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, look at broadleft.orgAndyL 05:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for Maoists, what I've said in the intro is that "parties on this list are mostly those that were aligned with either Moscow or Beijing during the Cold War and their offshoots". I think a seperate list for Trotskyist parties would make more sense given their number (there is a list of international Trotskyist movements already, that may be sufficient)AndyL 17:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thing

We could create a section of "Partially rulling" communist parties. I mean, parties which got partial power. (Uruguay, Venezuela, Italy, etc...)

[edit] ==

Why is this page only related to Communist Parties only affiliated to USSR or China? Surely it should ecompass those such as The Socialsit Party, Socialist Wokers Party in Great Britain and other parties like this around the world?

[edit] Transnistria

What is the Communist Workers' Party of Transnistria? —Sesel 13:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mongolia

Yesterday, I added the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party as an example of a communist government that was in power as part of a coalition. Somebody removed it. Am I correct that Mongolia is an example of a country that is ruled by a communist government in coalition? The wikipedia page on Mongolia would seem to confirm this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolia#Government_and_politics

I didn't delete it, but I don't think that the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party is a communist party in its current form. It was prior to 1992, but now, according to Wikipedia, it considers itself a "social democratic" party.

[edit] Coalition Communists

Since the Progressive Party of the Working People in Cyprus has been added, which rules in coalition as well as the Moldovan Communists, who rule through their victory in Democratic elections, I thought it would be fair to add all Communist Parties in ruling coalition governments. Similarly, there are many countries whose ruling Party is described as Marxist/Communist on their Wikipedia pages but which are not listed here, namely SWAPO, PFDJ and ZANU-PF and CPP so I also thought it would be appropriate to add them. The coalition Communist Parties I have noticed have all been posted, they all are currently in the ruling coalition of these governments, as is the AKEL in Cyprus.

SWAPO, PFDJ, and ZANU-PF are not, and probably were never (the PFDJ may have been at one point), communist parties. The CPP (I assume you are referring to Ghana's Convention People's Party) also was not a communist party. All four groups used elements of Marxist thought and rhetoric, but this is not the same as Marxism-Leninism or communism. —Sesel 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Communist_Parties_4759.html"