Talk:Communist Party of Spain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This page is absurd: - It has no mention of the connection between the PCE and stalin during the spanish civil war. Namelly that weapons would only be given to the republican side, by a hefty price and on the condition that communists would lead the military units that would use them. - It has no mention of the atrocities commited by the PCE agaist anarchist and other left forces, namelly the destruction of many communes in arangon and the persecution of any non PCE aligned revolutionaries in the end of the Spanish Civil War. - The rethoric could almost be taken directly by some leaflet from written by the PCE itself. "left-adventurists" ??? This article has no neutrality at all ! It is in the best tradition of washing history of any communist party - It appears it has been edited and re-edit again and again. Someone should do something about this !!!

I reverted this page, motivated by:

  • Inserting 'Stalinist' here and there, with the sole intention giving the article a negative tone, is hardly encyclopediatic.
  • "The Stalinist PCE, directed by José Díaz and Dolores Ibárruri Pasionaria, worked constistently for the victory of the Republican forces and the Popular Front government, but fought against Trotskyist and Anarchist currents, which the Stalinists regarded as threat." - is actually a misleading version of history. The earlier text, which highlights that the main interest of PCE at the time was to keep the republican front intact, and that it was adventurist elements that broke the unity which provoked conflict, better represents actual developments. CNT and POUM wanted to continue seizures of land during the midst of civil war, which endangered support from non-revolutionary groups (like liberals and regional nationalists in Catalonia and Basque Country) to the Republic.
  • " Reasons for this were Soviet aid during the war and Soviet influence that originated in the fact." was also removed. First its an odd sentence, it appears the second half is incomplete. Also, this cannot be see as the main cause for PCEs growth in terms of membership. PCE was at the time the republican force with the most well-knit organization, which enabled its to mobilize even during the course of war.
  • "Despite its socialist facade, this party was Stalinist in nature." Since when is there a contradiction between being socialist and 'stalinist'?
  • ", a step owing to growing hardline influence" equating 'hardline' and 'stalinism' is well, not factaully supported. Who are the 'stalinists' in PCE today?

--Soman 12:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when is there a contradiction between being socialist and 'stalinist'? Oh, what a pity -- I've been miselad, even Party of European Socialists may have Stalinist trash among its members? That's a pity!!!--Constanz - Talk 11:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The earlier text, which highlights that the main interest of PCE at the time was to keep the republican front intact, and that it was adventurist elements that broke the unity which provoked conflict, better represents actual developments -- this may be doubted. George Orwell in his Homage to Catalunya doesnt show POUM and FAI as adventursits; but he does reveal Stalinists as criminals. --Constanz - Talk 12:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Geez, and I suppose Orwell accounts for a politically neutral observer. also, "socialist" is not synonimous to "social democrat". The fact that the social democrats named their pan-european structure PES does not mean that all socialists are social democrats. --Soman 12:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Inserting 'Stalinist' here and there -- well, at that time the term 'communist' referred to 2 different directions -- trotskyists (who claimed to be the true communists) and Stalinists, i.e those who supported Moscow direction. Then we might call them stalinists (if the term is considered negative then their actions might be considered negative as well -- the PCE was stalinist during Civil war, just as other Third Inernational parties were at the time). --Constanz - Talk 12:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No, 'Stalinist' is a term that is far more complicated than that. Its actual usage today is quite different than that, and to say that all communists pre-1953 were stalinists is in many ways derogatory and misleading. --Soman 12:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
and to say that all communists pre-1953 were stalinists is in many ways derogatory and misleading. -- You haven't got the point: my point was exactly that there were many communists before 1953, who were not Stalinists; and there were others who were (such as PCE). That's why we should distuingish by using labels Ttrotskyte or Stalinist. --Constanz - Talk 07:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the confuse using the terms Trotskyite (which has negative connotation) and Trotskyist shows confusion on your behalf. Therre have continuously been dissident factions that divided from the communist movement. The point is that in the Trotskyist movement at the time it was quite easy to distinguish a single leading figure. Trotsky splitted away from ComIntern, and took his followers along with him. Whilst Trotsky was still alive his followers generally prefer not to be called 'trotskyist' or 'trotskyite' (which was often combined with ephitets like 'fascist' etc.), but after his death the term 'trotskyist' has largely been uncontroversial as it is generally acknowledged that Trotsky was the founder of the Fourth International. The term 'stalinist' is not identical. The parties that you consider 'stalinist' developed as branches of ComIntern under the leadership of Lenin. The members of those parties identified themselves as leninists. Stalin's takeover of ComIntern was gradual, and his persona was not the unifying ralling point of the movement. It was not alligeance to Stalin that kept the ComIntern together, as the role Trotsky played for the formation of the 4th International. IMHO, the term 'stalinist' gains to political relevance following Stalin's death in 1953, when dissident groups within the communist movement started rallying around the legacy of Stalin as opposed to the mainstream of the communist movement, which didn't. --Soman 08:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disapprove your intepretation of Stalin and his influence on Cominern. Wasn't that all the U-turns in Comintern direction were forced by Moscow (and therefor, from 1929 on, definitely by Stalin)?

In 1920s and early 1930s, the suicidal fight against moderate leftists (and just against every political force that was not of Communist-Stalinist-pro-Moscow orientation), then suddenly (after German was already lost) support for coalition of all the anti-fascist forces and for the theory of Popular Front.

And abruptly, after Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed and war broke out, the main enemy appeared to be Western democracies (remember the deserting of communists from French army, and Thorez' refusal to fight fascism then when he finally had this chance, and his cowardice running into Soviet exile), and the suicidal 'revolutionary defeatism' (to say nothing about the collaboration with the German occupants). Solzhenitsyn recalls: And all those changes in the newspaper headlines with regards to Nazis -- once the meetings of our friendly sentries in this shabby Poland, and waves of sympathy for those brave soldiers, who fight against the Anglo-French bankers, and Hitler's uncut speeches over whole pages of Pravda; and then suddenly one morning the explosion of headlines, claiming the whole Europe is moaning heart-breakingly under their heel. Did these ridiculous changes in direction really originate among the ranks of simple CP members of different countries? --Constanz - Talk 10:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We might have different opinion on the history of ComIntern. Not that it would make any difference for this article. 'Moscow' was not a homogenous political unit. Stalin certainly was the main figure behind the 1928-29 ultra-left turn, but the 1935 line of the popular front (which PCE was one of the main proponents of) was in many ways adopted against Stalin's will. The Popular Front line more or less recognized that the 1929 ultra-left line had been a disasterous mistake. --Soman 13:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Some u-turns were in many ways adopted against Stalin's will -- I'm afraid the thing is you've not spent a day in a totalitarian communist society nor have you read writings by those who really have. Regards, --Constanz - Talk 08:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

And you've read Solzhenitsyn and Orwell. As to my persona, keep your prejudice to yourself. --Soman 09:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, since when is Solzhenitsyn not a reliable source of Soviet history (do you suggest relying on fellows like Duranty then? Could you point out one noteworthy thing Solzhenitsyn was not right about?)--Constanz - Talk 12:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I've read loads of writings dating back to communist era, hundreds of Soviet history books which contain some truth but also idiotic soviet demagoguery. And i've heard enough of recollections from my parents, compatriots etc on the 'earthly paradise', which has always been admired mostly by those, who have not spent a single day there. I've read Bykav, Rasputin, writers of my native country and just every credible writer of the Soviet epoch. The main thesis of all these different writers remains the same. Thus, you represent minority POV with regards to Velikoye Delo Lenina.

--Constanz - Talk 13:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This obviously a side-track from the actual discussion. But don't try to claim that there is a consensus on history of the USSR. I suppose you're quite aware of the 'ostalgia' trend in East Germany, that Stalin is more popular than Yeltsin in Russian opinion polls, etc.. The question at stake is, was the Popular Front strategy of the 7th ComIntern congress as product of Stalin's will or not? Stalin obviously eventually gave his approval of the line, but to what extent can the Popular Front line be considered as 'stalinist'? --Soman 08:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
To sum up, unfortunately hardly any of those neo-stalinists have tasted Stalin's 'paradise' themselves. (There are 'ostalgic' people in my homeland as well, the heir to our CPE receives no more than 0.4% in the election, though.) --Constanz - Talk 12:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Whereas the communists in Moldova wins elections. Perhaps there are other factors at stake. In the Baltic states the relations to the history of Soviet rule is linked to the issue of national independence. The current political situation in Estonia confirms the validity of the Leninist principle of national self-determination, namely that by forcefully incorporating it into USSR it united differnt class sectors against socialism, which was seen in the shape of foreign occupation. --Soman 14:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
It remains a question, though, why the class consciousness of our working class has not risen and why my poor compatriots let themselves oppress just as hard as in other capitalist countiries of the western world such as Sweden and Finland.
As for Moldova (the poorest country in Europe), the good old commies have returned (but wait! isn't it that this is the result of failed economic reforms, which we in the Baltic countries have succeeded in?) and are reportedly just building up the happy earthly paradise there (hopefully they will manage to do the miracle that their Russian, Chilean, Mongolian, Chinese, Peruvian, Hungarian and German comrades failed to do). Happy people the Moldovians are! (though Estonians visiting this country report Moldovans telling: 'if only we had the problems you Estonians have...').--Constanz - Talk 14:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Communists in Moldova are pushing through market reforms to ensure EU membership. I'm not sure if that is the definition of an 'earthly paradise'. What I'm saying is that your mixing apples and oranges. The reasons behind the low votage for the left in Estonia lie not only in a general rejection of socialist governance, but has a special aspect linked to the national question. Most former socialist states have some sort of socialist or communist force participating in mainstream national politics. Thus there is no total consensus on how to evaluate the socialist period. As to the comparison of the economic situation of Estonia and Moldova, I'm sure you are aware that the Baltic SSRs were economically priviliged for political reasons. At the time of the breakup of USSR, living standards were significantly better there than in other republics. --Soman 15:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Estonia and Latvia were the most developed part of the USSR, as 'uncle Joe' had less time to rob us than he could rob Russia and Ukraine. I can't recall any special privileges (political motivations???) we had, those who had some privileges were immigrants brought here. And the disportion of GDP (to say nothing about the living standard) was not that high: currently, Estonia's GDP(PPP)per capita is 15,217$, while Moldova's 2,119$ (7 times less). Comparing nominal GDPs, things are even worse for Moldova (719$, Estonia: 8,473$, i.e almost 12 times more).--Constanz - Talk 07:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] PCE in USSR

The wordings included by User:Constanz about the treament of Spanish emigrees in USSR are problematic. 1) It has a tone that relativizes the suffering of antifascists in Spain 2) It makes generalized statements. How many people are we actually talking about? Does it refer to PCE militants or Spanish refugees in general. I'm in favour that the including a chapter on the situation of PCE in diaspora, both in West and East. --Soman 15:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of discussing the subject. Lamentably, Solzhenistyn does not give figures and I've not managed to find further information on the internet.--Constanz - Talk 07:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposed

How do we get this merged with Spanish Communist Party? Dogru144 16:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I oppose a merger. PCEspañol and PC de España are two separate organizations, and should be treated in separate articles. PC de España was created through the merger of two separate tendencies, PCEspañol and PCOE. --Soman 07:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ties

Currently, Communist Party of Spain holds ties with Communist Party of China, Communist Party of Cuba and Workers' Party of Korea.

This seems misleading. Are those ties more relevant than, say, Diesse, Communist Party of France or other Eurocommunist parties? What about post-communism?


[edit] UJCE

The Current transalition of UJCE used by it's international department and WFDY is Communist Youth Union of Spain, that is actually a more literate transalition than Young Communist Leauge (taht will be Liga juvenil Comunista or Liga de Jovenes Comunistas.Zape82 10:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PCElogo.PNG

Image:PCElogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pce2.jpg

Image:Pce2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)