Talk:Brazilian Communist Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

after all PCB and PPS are the same party, the group just changed its name. Thus it should be one article for PCB/PPS. --Soman 09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

-> No, they are totally different parties nowadays. They have different ideology, diferent registers, diferent numbers, different alliances. The articles defenitely shouldn't be merged.

The fact that the ideologies of parties change does mean that they are structually different. Neither does the fact that the party changed it registration change the fact that it is the same party. The question at stake is, did PCB dissolve itself and former members founded a new party, or did PCB change name to PPS? --Soman 16:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

-> Answering your question, the 10th Congress of the Brazilian Communist Party did, in fact, decided to change its name to Popular Socialist Party (PPS), as well as abandoning its classical structure and ideology.

Although, there are a lot of controversy about this: in first place, there were a lot of procedures on this Congress that did violated the PCB statute; the minority did not recognized this Congress and made another 10th Congress, resulting in the small party that calls itself PCB today - and made a historical review in favor of the positions of Luis Carlos Prestes in the party debate of the 1980´s; historical members of the PCB did not recognized the Congress results, joining the minority, abandoning the political life or joining other parties; even the PPS doesn´t consider itself to be the PCB with a new name, but the "heir of its best traditions"; the most recognized historical view in Brazil is that the PCB died in 1992 - just like the generally recognized historical view about the end of the Italian Communist Party (PCI).

The brazilian electoral justice initialy recognized the PPS as the continuation of the PCB, by allowing it to use the same electoral register. Meanwhile, this position was reviewd, which resulted in the recognition and the giving of electoral register to the party founded by the minority - todays PCB.

I believe that the best way to deal with this is to have three distinct articles, just like it was done in the case of the Italian Communist Party (PCI): one about the historical PCB (1922-1992), which can be classified as a defunct party; one about the PPS; and one about the nowadays PCB.

I happen to disagree. In my opinion, the PCB article should cover the whole history of the party, including its refoundation shortly after the creation of PPS. The PPS article, in turn, might also contain a small section about PCB as the party from which PPS has originated, but with a wikilink to the PCB article. Cheers Lomibz 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that just adds additional confusion. the current PCB is not identical to the historical PCB. The party earlier known as PCB is now known as PPS. --Soman 14:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And now what? The "party earlier known as PCB" has finally and peremptorily ceased to exist. The last trace of the former Partidão has vanished. I truly believe that we should change our stance concerning the scope of this article.

Hee, just something else: I do not think it is justified to say that socialist ideas did not develop in Brazil before the founding of the Communist Party. There had been various socialist congresses since the end of th 19th century. There were many anarchist, socialist and anarco-syndicalist newspapers. There were some moderate reformist socialists in congress who tried to develop labour legislation: Marcelo? Lacerda. It is true that anarchism, especially anarcho-syndicalism was dominant in these years, but they were not very strict anarchists and therefore also wrote about marxism and other socialist ideas. Moreover many founders of the PCB used to be anarchist in the years before, see Anarchism in Brazil Tamira C. 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral results

According to this source, PCB took 9.2% of the vote in the 1947 legislative election with about 480 thousand votes.[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.253.197 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC).