Talk:Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Latvia, a WikiProject related to Latvia. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Move to Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party?
This is the correct and most common translation for Latvijas Sociāldemokrātiskā strādnieku partija. Since the party and other Latvian socialist parties have a complex history and frequently changed their names (and I'm adding articles on the others), it is better to use this exact translation. I would move it myself, but I made a mistake earlier with the redirect, and the page has an edit history of my fixing the redirects...
This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 20:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article split
This article needs to be split, to differentiate between the pre-USSR parties and the current one. --Soman 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The modern party considers itself the same party ---- Xil/talk 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but is there any actual organic link? For example via exile organizations? --Soman 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there is an organic link and a multitude of practical links -- the same people, in many cases. This should not be separated. --62.205.208.36 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could you name some examples ? ----Xil...sist! 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note that there is already a parallel, albeit underdeveloped article Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party (1918). However, I agree that the current LSDSP considers itself to be the continuation of the original party. For example, they helped finance the publication of the interwar LSDSP politician Fēlikss Cielēns's memoirs Laikmetu maiņa (2nd ed., Riga, 1997–1999). — Zalktis 06:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party was banned 1939-1977, but the "Early History" is included in the entry. The prewar Latvian party was part of the Socialist Union of Central-Eastern Europe (1) and retained observer status in the Socialist International -- Brūno Kalniņš was an honorary president of the Socialist International even in the 1980s (2). The party congress in Jūrmala that renewed legal activity in Latvia in 1989 (by which time Kalniņš was dying) was the 20th Congress, not the 1st, and included many delegates from the continuous exile organization. Full membership status in the SI was renewed in 1990 under Uldis Bērziņš, who was and is devoted to the Kalniņš lineage. There were numerous mergers and splits, but I think there should be a single coherent article with links to separate articles if they actually get written; after all, the splits and mergers since 1989 make the party arguably less continuous in the last 18 years than it was 1904-1989! Even the earliest history is discontinuous in its way -- LSD was led by Bolsheviks. But even the Socialist International can be shown not to have been continuous. As it is, the parallel article to this one removed the early history I worked on. I think the reader should be given an overview, and that's what this entry ought to be. --Pēteris Cedriņš 05:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the case of psoe, it was one party throughout the illegal period. the current LSDSP is a merger of three separate groups, and the element of the LKP reformists were notable. Thus we cannot say that LSDSP today is identical to LSDSP in 1918. Separate organizations should have separate articles. The history of movements in exile must be developed, though. Regarding the numbering of congresses, this is the same with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (which counts pre-split congresses as 'theirs'), Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1992) (which counts all RSDLP/CPSU congresses as theirs), not to talk about the Communist Party of Nepal (Masal) (2006). --Soman 09:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- De jure it is the same party and always has been. "Notable elements" added or subtracted don't affect that. The other stuff should be noted in the article and not serve as a reason to destroy the article and half the information in it. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then you could put the entire history of the CPSU into the CPSU (1992) article as well, since it considers itself as the legitimate heir of the original CPSU. To say that the present LSDSP is identical to, or the 'de jure' continuation of the party founded in 1892 contradicts information given in the article itself. The LSD was transformed into the LKP, and the 1918 LSDSP was a break with the LSD (and should thus be considered as a separate party). The history of the LSDSP (1918) should be developed, in its respective article, especially with more details on the exile period. This article mentions two groups stemming from the LSDSP (1918), which were these? When did they split? Why did they split? --Soman 11:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article on the CPSU notes that "the party was dissolved in 1991" and that the "CPRF is generally seen (because of its massive size) as the inheritor of the CPSU in Russia." It gives a summary of various forms/names taken, links to a separate article on the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, etc. I have no objection to a separate article on the history of LSDSP and separate articles on LSD, SDS, etc., but I doubt that those articles are going to get written in the near future. The CPSU article does include plenty of explanatory material within the article itself. LSDSP was not dissolved -- there are what can be described as "breaks," but even those need to refer to a main article; for example, LSDSP was represented in the Latvian Central Council when LSDSP was an underground organization, during the Nazi phase of the occupation (by Pauls and Brūno Kalniņš, and Voldemārs Bastjānis). Of course this article needs considerable development, but I see no reason to subtract the section -- the divisions don't make much sense, in fact. When Latvia became independent again in 1990, LSDSP returned to Latvia. No, it "returned" to Latvia in 1989, and Latvia didn't regain its independence until 1991. And then one would need yet another split, because as politika.lv explains, the current party was created by joining the prewar party to LDDP, which was the nationalist wing of the Latvian Communist Party, in 1999. The prewar element remains constant -- and membership in the Socialist International has remained constant. From 1989, it was LSDSP that added to the member rolls in Latvia -- rolls that had been continuous abroad. As I suggested earlier, we ought to think about the user of this encyclopedia. There should be one inclusive article, in my view, with links to separate articles as they get written. A person doing research will encounter "LSDSP" at any point, and they should be able to place this in a context. To have an article on "social democracy" or "social democratic parties" in Latvia might make sense -- except that even then it will get awfully confusing; Skujenieks' "Mensheviks," for example, are yet another branch. And isn't it then a bit difficult to separate out the Bolsheviks? After all, the original socdems included them. It seems far simpler, in my opinion, to stick to the party/parties that have used the LSDSP name. --Pēteris Cedriņš 12:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, then you could put the entire history of the CPSU into the CPSU (1992) article as well, since it considers itself as the legitimate heir of the original CPSU. To say that the present LSDSP is identical to, or the 'de jure' continuation of the party founded in 1892 contradicts information given in the article itself. The LSD was transformed into the LKP, and the 1918 LSDSP was a break with the LSD (and should thus be considered as a separate party). The history of the LSDSP (1918) should be developed, in its respective article, especially with more details on the exile period. This article mentions two groups stemming from the LSDSP (1918), which were these? When did they split? Why did they split? --Soman 11:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- De jure it is the same party and always has been. "Notable elements" added or subtracted don't affect that. The other stuff should be noted in the article and not serve as a reason to destroy the article and half the information in it. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the case of psoe, it was one party throughout the illegal period. the current LSDSP is a merger of three separate groups, and the element of the LKP reformists were notable. Thus we cannot say that LSDSP today is identical to LSDSP in 1918. Separate organizations should have separate articles. The history of movements in exile must be developed, though. Regarding the numbering of congresses, this is the same with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (which counts pre-split congresses as 'theirs'), Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1992) (which counts all RSDLP/CPSU congresses as theirs), not to talk about the Communist Party of Nepal (Masal) (2006). --Soman 09:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party was banned 1939-1977, but the "Early History" is included in the entry. The prewar Latvian party was part of the Socialist Union of Central-Eastern Europe (1) and retained observer status in the Socialist International -- Brūno Kalniņš was an honorary president of the Socialist International even in the 1980s (2). The party congress in Jūrmala that renewed legal activity in Latvia in 1989 (by which time Kalniņš was dying) was the 20th Congress, not the 1st, and included many delegates from the continuous exile organization. Full membership status in the SI was renewed in 1990 under Uldis Bērziņš, who was and is devoted to the Kalniņš lineage. There were numerous mergers and splits, but I think there should be a single coherent article with links to separate articles if they actually get written; after all, the splits and mergers since 1989 make the party arguably less continuous in the last 18 years than it was 1904-1989! Even the earliest history is discontinuous in its way -- LSD was led by Bolsheviks. But even the Socialist International can be shown not to have been continuous. As it is, the parallel article to this one removed the early history I worked on. I think the reader should be given an overview, and that's what this entry ought to be. --Pēteris Cedriņš 05:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note that there is already a parallel, albeit underdeveloped article Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party (1918). However, I agree that the current LSDSP considers itself to be the continuation of the original party. For example, they helped finance the publication of the interwar LSDSP politician Fēlikss Cielēns's memoirs Laikmetu maiņa (2nd ed., Riga, 1997–1999). — Zalktis 06:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could you name some examples ? ----Xil...sist! 20:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there is an organic link and a multitude of practical links -- the same people, in many cases. This should not be separated. --62.205.208.36 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but is there any actual organic link? For example via exile organizations? --Soman 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
To have an article on 'History of Social Democratic movements in Latvia' as a parallel article, but retaining separate articles for separate organizational entities. The notion that there would be direct continuity from 1892 doesn't work, as LSD joined the Bolsheviks. The notion that the Mensheviks 're-established the LSDSP' is a highly pov opinion. What is the character of links from 1940 to 1989, it would be useful to have some sources on this period. --Soman 14:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I really see no reason to split the article. Certainly if the material develops, it can spawn sub-articles with greater detail on specific periods. I would mention to Soman that there's a representation of editors here with a deep knowledge of Latvia's poliical history and, I should mention, beholden more to facts than POV. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. Hit some key that saved prior to finishing edit comment, was saying that the Latvian contingent here is not "highly POV", being quite knowledgeable (and some quite expert) on Latvia's political history. Being Latvian does not automatically equate to being POV. I can tell Soman there are editors represented here with whom I don't always quite agree, but I respect that their position, whatever it is, is (also) based in fact and in a reputable interpretation of fact. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- P.P.S. Citing your own work (this is the same with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (which counts pre-split congresses as 'theirs'), Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1992) (which counts all RSDLP/CPSU congresses as theirs), not to talk about the Communist Party of Nepal (Masal) (2006)) as applicable isn't appropriate--even if it weren't your work. It is more important that each article's content be appropriate to it's own subject. I don't see any need to confuse readers with multiple articles here. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
As it stands, Latvian Social Democratic Workers' Party (1918) is a forked stub. Non-duplicate information should be merged into the history section here in this article. —Zalktis (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this discussion really ended in a conclusion, it just fizzled out. If there are any sources on the 1945 to 1989 linkage of LSDSP, I'm willing to change my position. But if this is just the self-perception of LSDSP, it is more problematic. --Soman (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is not merely self-perception. No-one seriously rejects the current LSDSP's claim to be the continuation of the pre-WWII party. For instance, there has been no legal challenge about the right to use the name by rival claimants. Additionally, the LSDSP renewed its full membership status in the Socialist International on 12 June 1991,[1] implying that the SI viewed that there was organisational continuity with Kalniņš's outfit. To this day, it remains the sole member of SI from Latvia.[2] —Zalktis (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- But isn't that just a testament to the fact that other sd factions disappeared over time? I'm not unwilling to go for a compromise, but some sort of sourcing of lsdsp activity in exile during the cold war is needed. This is, as stated before, not a unique case and their is a need it retain some academic strigency on this type of claims. --Soman (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite so that there are no longer any other rival groupings that brand themselves social democrats in Latvia. Cf. the case of the Social Democratic Union. But even they don't challenge the pedigree of the current LSDSP. —Zalktis (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anyhow, point taken about the need to find solid sources about the continuity problem. —Zalktis (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- But isn't that just a testament to the fact that other sd factions disappeared over time? I'm not unwilling to go for a compromise, but some sort of sourcing of lsdsp activity in exile during the cold war is needed. This is, as stated before, not a unique case and their is a need it retain some academic strigency on this type of claims. --Soman (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is not merely self-perception. No-one seriously rejects the current LSDSP's claim to be the continuation of the pre-WWII party. For instance, there has been no legal challenge about the right to use the name by rival claimants. Additionally, the LSDSP renewed its full membership status in the Socialist International on 12 June 1991,[1] implying that the SI viewed that there was organisational continuity with Kalniņš's outfit. To this day, it remains the sole member of SI from Latvia.[2] —Zalktis (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
