Talk:Left Party (Sweden)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Sweden The article on Left Party (Sweden) is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance 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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

This is a controversial political topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

Contents

[edit] Soman's attempt to conceal the truth

Anyone living in Sweden would know that there's almost daily an article about the problems in the left party that are a large part to due the undemocratic history of the party. This alone makes the passages that talk about that history very relevant.

As for Soman's comments about Israel, he must not know what he is talking about. A handfull of right-wingers? Only last week the entire Swedish riksdag (except the left party of course) criticised the left party because one of its high-profile members told people she "understood" Iran's desire to wipe The State of Israel off the map. http://www.liberalerna.net/nyhetsbrev/start/issue.asp?NewsletterIssueID=282

For the privatisation parts, Soman really should read VP's own party manifesto

For the other parts, he should read about VP's history:

http://www.samuelsiren.com/vpk.php http://members.chello.se/stridsberg/vansterpartietshistoria.html (Och korresponderande NE artiklar) http://www.socialistiskapartiet.se/e107_files/downloads/vp_sp_vp_historia.html

And of course, the famous TV-show that made it all public: http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=2232Itake 09:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (previously unsigned comment by me)

but the provided links give no backing for your edits. In which article does it say that the party was founded after SAPs rejection of the Russian revolution? Where are the proofs on financing of the "building" (although it was already built when SKP bought it) of Kungsg. 84? As to the Israel issue, one press statement from an opponent party is hardly to say that the party is often criticized. The fact that opposing political parties critize each other can hardly be news. --Soman 15:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Propaganda Journalists such as Samuel Sirén is the biggest producer of liberal bullshit in this country. The article have no sources, and only by watching i can fint serveral faulty "facts". Besides, i never hear anything about disputes in the left party, rather fights among the partys in the right wing alliance, who never shares as much as a single opinion. Wikipedias articles are supposed to be neutral, so for gods sake, dont mix in Sirén.

Thank you for that completely uninformative,uncredential and extremely biased opinion, commie. Itake 12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I encourage further discussion. If the reverting continues, you are subject to WP:3RR. // Fred-Chess 22:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


A small note: Almost daily problems is completely untrue. I, myself is a member of the left party and there are not any big issues. The main problem only was when Lars Ohly said he was a communist wich was not a problem either, except those who did not truly understand what he meant. There are tons of ways to see on communism after all and he was mostly critizied for supporting dictators he didnt support. As I said, only a small note. I dont tend to edit the article because my skills in writing is yet to poor. Also, using a liberal link (that doesnt even work) as a source for the fact that she is critiziesed isnt a good idea. The pages on a website like that cant be very neutral. User: Anarand

Thank you for editing Itake. Rabid anti-communism is an endemic problem on English language sites. I appreciate the efforts to keep the VP site reasonable.

[edit] recent edit

I recently removed a the following passage by user Itake (who has a grave POV history): "Organisations such as Vägval Vänster criticise the internal democracy of the party, claiming the party leadership suppresses those who want a broader left party. Organisations such as Amnesty International criticise the party for their support of the dictatorship on Cuba. A tv-documentary called "Uppdrag granskning" revealed that the left party had in the past worked as a puppet for the communist party of the Soviet Union. They had tried to implement the soviet agenda in Sweden and they recevied money from the soviet union. They also invited delegates from the communist dictatorships to attent their congress, and sent birthday greetings to Kim Il-sung. The party chairman Lars Ohly was earlier criticised for his membership in the Castro-supporting organisation SVEK, but has since left the organisation."'

The motivations are the following:

  1. The passage is badly written, and severly unstructured
  2. Vägval Vänster needs to be explained more about what is etc., and a context of the ongoing discussions inside the Party
  3. There is no source backing up the claim taht AI has critized the party on the Cuba issue. A google-search on site:amnesty.se + Kuba + Vänsterpartiet does not give any results.
  4. "Uppdrag Granskning" did not "reveal" anything about the Party. It was a documentary that, in a biased way, discussed issues relating to certain aspects of the history of the Party. It did not reveal a any new facts of importance of the party. In fact, a major part of its research material came from publications written and published by the Party and its youth league following 1990. The international relations of the party have always been well documented.
  5. UG did not provide any actual information on that the party would have received money from teh Soviet Union, only insinuating it.
  6. To call the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Society as "Castro-supporting organisation" is of course POV. To use the abbreviation SVEK (Swedish for 'betrayal') is also POV.

--Soman 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Thats not a reason to remove the passage. Edit, yes, but not remove.
  2. Same as above
  3. They did after members of the party criticised AI because AI listed the people imprisoned on Cuba as prisoners that had been imprisoned for their political beliefs.
  4. No, it was a documentary that was sent on state-run television. It was a documentary that was reported for being POV, put before trial, and cleared. Your objections are clearly unfounded. The party's very deep ties with the soviet union and international communism needs to be highlighted because one of the major issues for the party today is those ties.
  5. UG had backings for all its claims.
  6. Heh, no its not. Why? Because SVEK themselves use the abbrivation SVEK. Because this is the ENGLISH wikipedia, because SVEK themselves expressingly support Castro. Thats why.
  7. Further, I do not have a grave POV history. You have a grave POV history, and this criticism passage is staying if I so have to dedicate every awake moment to editing on wikipedia.
unsigned comment by Itake.
  1. There can well be a 'Criticism' section. But it needs to be balanced, wellwritten and factually correct. The text inserted by you was neither
  2. Actually such arguments would better fit in the history section, expanding it on issues relating to the period 2004-2005. VVV is an internal fraction, not and outside commentary.
  3. Provide source.
  4. Cleared by whom? That something passes 'Granskningsnämnden' doesn't make it unbiased per se. The links with the international communist movement is explained in the history chapter. Perhaps the article could need a separate chapter on international relations of the party.
  5. Interestingly they didn't refer to them in the film itself. There are articles written about this issue, but based on insinuating assumptions and up to now conclusive evidence has not been established. Wikipedia is a dictionary.
  6. Provide source that the organisation uses the abbreviation SVEK. The organisation supports Cuba.
  7. See Christian Democrats (Sweden).

--Soman 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes it was
  2. I did that, remember? And you deleted it. So now I'm grouping it one section, so readers can easily see it.
  3. http://www.svensk-kubanska.se/cubava/pdf/Amnesty-flygblad.pdf. Produced in the SVEK newspaper, edited by Eva Björklund, member of the Left party board. http://www2.amnesty.se/ap.nsf/webbreportage/82050C4F485A415EC1256DD4003D8C1C?opendocument for more.
  4. Err, yes it does. Thats exactly what it does, thats exactly what said department is for. Making sure the documentaries stay unbiased and facually correct.
  5. Again, the documentary passed the check.
  6. http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensk-kubanska_f%C3%B6reningen. Lars Ohly himself stated that the organisation was only an exstension of the communist party of Cuba and thus Castro.

http://home.swipnet.se/cuba/debatte.htm for the abbrivation.

  1. Exactly, see Christian Democrats (Sweden).

Itake 16:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments concerning the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association are complety unbased. The article in Amnesty Press doesn't even mention the Left Party at all. The article mentions the name of an individual party member (alternative member of the party board), and concludes that she holds a different opinion than Amnesty. Neither the party nor any individual member has been denounced by Amnesty. --Soman 15:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I see how you are budging, even if its only one piece at a time. But we'll get there, dont' worry.

The comments concerning the Swedish-Cuban friendship association are not unbased. The organisation does support Castro, and they do support the current political situation on Cuba. That situation is not democracy. The SVEK organisation draws the majority of its members from the left party, it is relevant. Eva Björklund is a very important and public member of both the left party and SVEK, and she but one of many such members. Like said, the chairman himself was recently a member and his membership was so criticised he actually left SVEK. Relevant? Yes. The article clearly, (just look at the title) states that Eva Björklun, SVEK and its other left party members belive Amnesty Inrtnetional is lying. That is denouncing. SVEK itselfs belives Amnesty International collaborates with the US against Cuba, also denouncing. In return, Amnesty International has denounced those claims. Relevant? Yes.Itake 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

But Amnesty has never criticized the Left Party, right? If they did, wouldn't they also mention the party? Its little like the following: I suppose (based on my personal prejudicies) there is a great deal of NRA affiliates in the leadership of the US Republican Party, although the positions of NRA and the Republicans are not mechanically the same. Say that an anti-gun lobby group launches criticism against a leading NRA member, who also happens to be affiliated to the Republican Party (or even holding some sort of position in the party). Is that then the exact same thing as criticizing the Republican Party? Btw, the congress of the Left Party last week voted no to a proposal in favour of supporting Cuba. --Soman 18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't state they criticised the party itself either, I stated they criticised several high-up members. Come on now, we both see where this is going. You've got no viable defence to your continious edits, just accept the criticism and move on. The congress voted no in favour of a resolution what would have described the situation in Cuba as democracy. The members of SVEK that are also members of the VP did not leave the party, they didn't stop their support of Cuba. The leader of the youth-wing will probably travel to the world youth festival next year too, even if its hosted in NORTH KOREA like last year. So yes, the criticism should still stay there because its important for people to know that this is a party with a very, very questionable view on democracy and human rights.Itake 09:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This is just getting more loony for each turn. The article in Amnesty Press is 1) a magazine article, not a press statement. It explains different opinions of different people and institutions in Swedish politics about the Cuba issue. It confirms that there exist a difference of opinion between AI and Swedish-Cuban Friendship Society. It does not, and this should be understood for anyone with a proper understanding of Swedish language, constitute an act of denouncing (which would have been expressed in an official AI press statement). 2) The sole Left Party member mentioned in this article is Eva Björklund, who is an alternate member of the party board. Her party membership is not referred to in the article. The argument that AI "criticised several high-up members" is a gross falsification. Moreover, no international youth festival held be held in the coming year and when it is going to be held its highly unlikely that it would be held in North Korea. Neither the party nor the youth league has had any relations to North Korea since 1989/1990. Your statements repeatedly shows an overall lack of factual knowledge about the history of the communist movement, a lack that you happily substitute with mere prejudice. --Soman 11:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
A magazine article by their official paper is good enough. If you feel there's to little fact to backup the statement about amnesty international, then remove it. I don't care, as long as the other parts stay. As for the international youth festival, are you denying that former youth-organisation leader Tove Fraurud visited the international youth festival in north korea(when the next one is to be held really doesnt' matter)? This same Tove Frarud who belives Cuba is more democratic then the United States. 1989/1990 is not very long ago, and definently worthwile to mention in the article. We are talking about a party who send happy birthday greetings to a massmurderer and a dictator. This isn't some isolated incidents, the party has a very long history of fraternising with some of the worst people/organisations ever to exist on the face of this planet. VERY worthwhile to mention. I'd say your statements repeteadly show that in reality you know aswell as I do that I'm right. Which is why you have started to accept the things I've stated, even if its not so much at a time. Face it Soman, I've got factual backup for my claims. You don't. Itake 12:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You are really making things easy for me. Tove Fraurud, who btw is no longer the president of the youth wing, visited the world festival of youth and students in VENEZUELA (learn geography) 2005. The festival was held in Pyonyang in 1989, in which KU, SSU, CUF, etc. participated (i know for sure MUF did not take part, unsure about LUF and KDU). Another point, is it mentioned that your party (KD) sat in the same international organization as the butchers in Rwanda?
In order to reach som understanding, I propose that International relations be made a separate chapter in the article. Criticism raised on the issues of the international relation may be mentioned in the 'Criticism' chapter, but the main information about which parties the party had relation to should be discussed separtely. --Soman 12:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm creating a page at Left Party (Sweden)/temp were a chapter titled 'International relations' be written and discussed. When a full chapter is completed it can be copied into the main article. --Soman 12:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Notice the "former youth-organisation leader" part? I might have got the date wrong, but the organisation did visit North Korea. And I seriously doubt LUF, MUF or KDU was there. My party preferences or the christian democratic party at all isn't what we are supposed to discuss here. Its painfully obvious when you state things like that this is is nothing more then a personal crisis for you, and that you are very, very biased. Though, if you want to discuss the KD party, feel free to by said talk page. I can help you dispell any crazy myths about the party you might belive. And again, the part about Tove Fraurud is really not relevant anyways. The party send happy birthday greetings to North Korea, enough to tie it with the Korean Worker's Party. As for the forced nationalisation, did you read your own party manifesto? Are you not aware that your party wishes to nationalize parts of the energy, media and banking sectors? Your attempts to portray the left party as a happy little friendly socialist party is really failing.Itake 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you got the date wrong with about 17 years. The party had relations, in fact good and cordial relations, with the WPK in the 1980s. But a conscious decision was taken to break that relation, as part of an overall re-evaulation of the international policy of the party. Those people in the youth league today has never had any relation to North Korea. As per the right-wing youth leagues and the festivals, FPU (now LUF) participated in various festivals. Maria Leisner participated as a LUF delegate in the Havanna festival in 1978. MUF on the other hand always boycotted the festival movement. KDU at that time was a minor force, I'm not sure whether it participated in the National Youth Council that sent delegations to the festivals. Moreover, the birthday greetings are a peripheral issue in international relations. Its more relevant, to discuss participation at congresses and delegations to sent and received. I again refer to Left Party (Sweden)/temp to continue build-up on an chapter on the history of the international relations of the party there. Finally, for this time, you contradict yourself. You claim that it is of importance to point out my political preferences as biased whereas you don't like to have your own mentioned. --Soman 16:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, festivals and the like don't really matter as they are international events of a nature that is atleast somewhat neutral. Personally I'd rather shoot myself in my left foot then participate in any event hosted by the North Korean goverment, but thats just me. Political preferences like I said don't really matter, though I can trace your obvious bias to your political preferences. Mine doesn't matter because I'm not the biased one.

[edit] Document

'Makt och Ägande-dokumentet', [1], --Soman 13:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit

User:itake has again started attempting to insert POV language into the article.

  • He has repeatedly used the the wording that the Left Party had been an extension of CPSU. Now he started claiming that the party "took orders directly" from CPSU. That passage is highly misleading. Can Itake explain how VPK protests against Soviet interventions in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan were done on the orders of Moscow.
  • "was involved with" is a strange wording, that implies a negative connotation. VPK had fraternal relations with various CPs, both state-bearing and non-state-bearing. There's no specific reason if a single party should be mentioned to mention WPK (with whom the relation was rather brief).
  • "Uppdrag Granskning that made the partys relationship with communist dictatorships public." is a direct error. UG's main source was the publications of the party. All international relations of the party have been openly presented by the party (read VPK-Information for detailed info on each delegation sent and received during 1970s and 1980s). The only "new" information presented by that documentary was individual anecdotes.
  • Itake keeps referring to the Swedish-Cuban Friedship Association as "SVEK" (swedish for "Betrayal"). Needless to say, that is a POV wording.
  • "The party is frequently criticised for their stance towards Israel" is factually incorrect. If you read opinion polls on the attitude of the Swedish population towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, the political line of (v) largely corresponds to the mainstream opinions. Rather, the party recieves a lot of support for its principled stand on demanding the right of a Palestinian state, and it is the Social Democratic government that is acting in a diverging manner compared to the opinions of their grassroots.
  • "and the party's youth organisation has funded terrorist movements in the middle-east". A few years back Ung Vänster gave a 2000 Swedish krona donation to PFLP. A symbolic gesture, to challenge new terror laws passed by the EU.

--Soman 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The party took orders from the soviets, thats a fact. It states so in this article, it was revealed in the documentary by SVT, and it has been admitted by the party itself aswell.
  • "Implies a negative connation". Yes of course, being involved with massmurderers, dictators and the likes is a NEGATIVE thing. You Soman, you are trying to cover up the truth. The truth that almost the entire population of Sweden already knows, the truth that should definently be revealed to anyone reading this article. It shouldn't perforate the entire article, but that is why it is under the CRITICISM part.
  • No its not a direct error. Noone knew about it because noone cared. When SVT went public (as in MAINSTREAM public) with it, people started caring.
  • No, its not factually incorrect. They are frequently critised because they have done everything from condoning terrorist actions, to openly support terrorist actions, to supporting the destruction of the state of Israel. This is what they get criticised for (again, which is why its under the CRITICISM part).
  • They funded a terrorist organisation, end of story. If you want to write a part where the criticism is met, do so. But don't try and cover up the truth. Itake 17:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. You still haven't answered on the issues of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Moreover, UG did not provide any revelation in this. It speculated around what were the causes of the non-adoption of the "Democracy Manifest" at one VPK congress. There was however no actual proof that the 'threat' from the CPSU delegation was the decisive factor to the congress' decision not to adopt the manifest.
  • 2. You tend to quite clearly show your own POV intentions. If you think that there is such a thing as something objectively negative in politics, you cannot be NPOV. Moreover, the current text hardly covers up the fact that the history of international relations of the party is contriversial in mainstream media, see "During the past years such criticism has focused largely on issues relating to the history of the party and the relations that the party conducted with the state-bearing parties of the Socialist Bloc. Those debates were largely spurred by a documentary broadcast on Swedish TV in 2004 called Uppdrag Granskning."
  • 3. So you do admit you were wrong? (using the phrase "revealed") The text as its stand acknowledges that UG spurred the debates about the subject.
  • 4. A criticism that rarely gets major force. The ones maintaining this line is generally Livets Ord followers and their likes. (träffad?) Please state substantiate when the Left Party has been met with this criticism.
  • 5. "a terrorist organisation" (in singular, not plural as your text read). It is my standpoint that the "criticism" section should be streamlined to the mainstream criticism, and not that of fringe factions of swedish politics. --Soman 21:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • 1 There isn't an issue about Czechoslovakia or Afghanistan. Fact is, the part was a member of the comintern. The comintern was an exstension of the soviet communist party. Fact is, the party headquarters was bought from money recevied from the soviet union[2].
No proof? I'm not even going to debate silly points like that. Delegates from the soviet union attend the meeting. A democracy-manifest is presented. Delegates from the soviet union threaten to leave should the manifest be accepted. The manifest is not accepted.

Perphaps lack of light isn't the decisive factor of darkness? Yeez...

  • 2 The current text is more then adequate, and not POV satured by sentences like "In difference to several other major political forces in Sweden, the Left Party does not posses any major media outlets of its own" or "Criticism against the party is continuously raised in the mainstream media". Insinuations anyone?
  • 3 No, it was REVEALED to the public with said show. Before that, the public was unaware.
  • 4 I'm not going to dignify your petty insults with a remark, wheter they be in Swedish or English.

EDIT: No wait, I am going to dignify it with a response: Your Mother

For an example of such criticism, take the recent example of a a high-ranking left party member who said she "understood" the Iranian leaders desire to wipe Israel off the map. In return, she was condemned by every single party in the swedish riksdag.
  • 5 Sure, terrorist organisation. My bad.
A while ago you refused to even have a criticism section. Before that you refused any criticism at all. You are slowly loosing, Soman, on point after point. And I will continue point after point, until the article reflects ALL sides of the left party. Not just your own POV bias. Itake 22:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Note at [3] that Itake admits having resorted to profanities, using offensive language against me.

1. 1. Itake does not want to talk about Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia. I suppose that makes sense. If he would do so, his own argumentation would fall. If VPK was merely a subsidary of CPSU, how come they took diametrically opposing view on what ought to be the most crucial moments of Soviet foreign policy in the post-war era? 1. 2. ComIntern was a transnational organization. SKP was a section of ComIntern. So was CPSU. Formalities apart, SKP had its own organizational structures. SKP was obligied to adhere to recommendations from ComIntern, but so was CPSU. To claim that ComIntern was merely an extension of Soviet foreign policy is ahistorical. ComIntern was an organization in which different views were present, and in which political lines were changed after discussions. At times Stalin stood at the losing end of debates. Do study differences of how (v)/VPK on one hand and KPML(r) describe the history of the communist movement at the time, and you'll see that the history isn't as black and white as you try to proclaim. 1. 3. The link provided is a press release from the Liberal Party. In brief it mixes generalized assumptions with mere speculations, paying lipservice to a single report by an individual historian. The claim you make regarding the party office is actually (if read the statement in full) not backed up by any passage in the text. Also, the text is politically inconstistent. The party bought Syninge in order to abolish the depency of using similar facilities in the GDR. Hardly something in the interest of SED. 1. 4. Regarding the "Democracy Manifest" you are still speculating. Were you there, or are you just guessing? Perhaps there were other factors at place, far more mundane than geopolitics? Who wrote the manifest? What was the standing of those individuals inside the party? Was the manifest seen as an attempt to fractionalize the party? 2. Well, you're sort of the master of insinuations, so i'd suppose you'd be the expert of the subject. Do you seriously believe that there is no relation between media ownership and the material published? For example, do you see any difference in how Dagen and major evening tabloid reported about Knutby? 3. Well, shouldn't it also then be mentioned that the main material for UG came from (v):s own publication, "Lik i Garderoben?". Note that UG is already mentioned in the text. The wording "revealed" is at best unnecessary, but moreover misleading. 5. Every party in the riksdag? isn't (v) represented in the riksdag? moreover, this was criticism directed to a single MP, based upon an intentional misinterpretation what was actually said. I can understand quite a few horrible things, without actually condoning them or wishing them to happen. But in politics, there's rarely space for discussion. --Soman 23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Note the history of this talk page, where Soman consistently backs down from his POV edits, point after point. His POV bias should have been very, very obvious by now. He has consistenly refused any attempt by any editor besides himself to change the POV content of the article.
  • 1. I wasn't a part of the inner circles of the CPSU, I don't know. What I do know is that they took orders from the CPSU. Obviously not on every issue, but contrary to any other major political party in Sweden of that time, they took orders from the CPSU.
  • 2. Pft, please. Don't give me that. All members of the ComIntern had to abide by the decisions of the executive committe in Moscow. Even the article, probably POV edited by you aswell, state that the organisation was under control of the CPSU.
  • 3. Read the entire article, with sources[4]. It doesn't matter who published it, because it has got sources to back up its claims with.
  • 4. Yes, as much speculation as your claim of a "relation between media ownership and the material published". Perhaps there are other factors in place, ey?
  • 5. You could create an article about the show in question, and there you can write about where the material to the show came from.
  • 6. You must be a sad, sad person with little to no friends to consistently point out small errors in spelling or phrase construction...moreover, it doesn't matter wheter its individual members or not. They are a part of the party, they represent the party, and this sort of criticism gets out all the time against different members of the party. Itake 12:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Itake on the other hand has constantly upheld the glorious path of political neutrality, and always
  • 1. The problem is that you make a generalized statement. In this case you have to differentiate between different periods of the history of the party. 1919-1943 the party was a section of the ComIntern. This is, however, not something that is widely criticized. It is a historical fact. The criticism directed towards the party is usually more concentrated around the later phase of the Cold War (like UG), a period in which the party had a quite different relation with CPSU. If a text on the criticism of the international relations of the party is included in the criticism section, then that must also be reflected.
  • 2. I refer you to study the different versions of the history of the communist movement, say the publications of VPK and KPML(r). Obviously there are different evaluations on the ComIntern period.
  • 3. I did read the entire article. You have to learn a few basic rules of how political demagoguery works. The article have sources (one historian), but the actual references made does not precisely substantiate the its headline claims. Rather the headline claims (concerning the purchase of party property) is based upon general insinuations.
  • 4. If there are other factor, then you are free to state them.
  • 5. ?
  • 6. I recall hering an anecdote about stones and glasshouses at some point. Anyone studying the history at Christian Democrats (Sweden) will easily read your own POV positions, constantly wanting to remove criticism against the party. You've embarked on conspiracy theories as to why the gay rights movement is opposed to KD, and removed even rather neutral wordings on the party's backing amongst religious sectors.

--Soman 12:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Always.
  • 1. Yes it is widely criticised. The party even had the security police tagging them during that time, because it was so criticised. Its part of their communist history, which is widely criticsed.

2. I'm sure there are, but it doesn't change the fact that they were members. 3. Oh of course. Its all a big conspiracy to frame the Left Party! Ah, how could I miss that. So obvious. If YOU can't bring any facts that says otherwise, then I'm going to keep with my facts. 4. Oui, they are targeted for mainstream criticism because they are bad. 5. Create an article about the show in question (Uppdrag Granskning) and there you can dispute the sources or whatever. 6. Nope. Unlike you, I don't do the POV dance. If you would take some time to read up on stuff before you go arguing, you would see that the matter on the Christian Democrats (Sweden) has been settled a long time ago, in a way that was agreed to by all parties. If you want to whine and rant about the CD party aswell, do it on the correct talk page. Then we can do it there, and I can win again. Itake 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand irony

1. That actually amounts to historical revisionism. The persecution of the party on behalf of the state was hardly a result of criticism against it. 2. ? you don't answer the question 3. No, read through the document again and state where it actually claims that the party property was bought with Soviet money. 4. That comment sort of disqualifies you from the process of making an improving an article. If you're sole intention with the editing of this article is to show that the party in question "are bad", then it will be difficult for you to contribute in any meaningfull way. 5. You're just repeating the same phrase. I actually don't see what passage your former comment refered to. 6. See Itake's answer on nr. 4, and judge if he doing the "POV dance". --Soman 13:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • 1. No, it was a result of them being so warm and fussy that noone though they would ever do anything bad. Please... Itake 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. What question?Itake 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 3. It states so in the entire document. Itake 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 4. Well lucky us that we do not have a man so satured with his own commie POV to make judgements on who can and who can't make edits to an article on wikipedia. Your only purpose, as can be seen so far, is to remove any and all criticism on the left party from the article. No doubt then, that should disqualify you. 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 5. Then learn to read. Itake 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 6. Yes, please do. Itake 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. You could at least have attributed it to the general Col War scenario.
  • 2. I think we lost the thread on this one. The point at stake is that different wings of the communist traditions evaluate the ComIntern period differently, pointing to that there might be alternative ways of interpretation.
  • 3. Please provide a quote.
  • 4. Somehow I think you've misunderstood the concept of an open encyclopedia. People of very different backgrounds and opinions come together to build up a database for global usage. No matter what opinions I personally have, I must be able to write about groups and individuals that I dislike without resorting to ranting or selective POV editing. If your view-point in editing this article is that the party in question is objectively 'bad', then your possiblities of actually contributing to wikipedia in a meaningful way is rather limited.
  • 5. Was a questioning the sources of UG? I was just pointing out that the main material of UG had been public for decades, and supplied by the party itself.

--Soman 15:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again...

Constanz is reinserting removed material, which has been criticized on the talk page, without motivating the passages. In brief:

  • The passage that the party 'took direct orders' is hilarious, considering the party's stance on Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan and Poland.
  • 'involved with' is POV wording.
  • 'notorious', well is an easy one
  • 'SVEK' is a derogatory naming for the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association
  • International relations of the party has been public for decades
  • The assertment that Özkürt's statement would be anti-semitic is, of course, highly POV. Note that the 'reference' is the newsservice of an opposing political party.

--Soman 09:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

the 'reference' is the newsservice of an opposing political party. -- oh really? Some decades ago the commmies, being told of the Soviet crimes, also noted, that the criticism comes from opponents of Communism, why take these seriously...--Constanz - Talk 14:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Intriguing logic. Perhaps it could be applied universally. --Soman 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you didn't grasp may point, which was that I'd expect you not to use this kind of 'brilliant' logic here in an encyclopedia.--Constanz - Talk 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
There is obvious difference in using an academic article or a press statement from a political party as a source. Not that the academic article is 100% neutral nor that a political press release per se is lies. What is more disturbing is that you only answer a supplimentary comment. The main question was that asserting Özkürt's statement as antisemitic is, of course, POV. --Soman 08:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Özkürt approved Ahmadinejad's statement, which of course can be regarded as either anti-semitic, anti-Zionist or, on the other hand, as anti-imperialist, from the corresponding POV's. I personally think guys who claim Israel should be destroyed suit in the first category.
You and your Vänsterpartiet friends probably maintain Ahmadinejad expressed 'progressive anti-imperialist' views in support of the 'just cause' of the palestinian liberation movement and so on and so forth (we've heard such rubbish enough, i think)--Constanz - Talk 10:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text

In addition to readding deleted material, Constanz also inserted the following passage: "More typically for Western communist parties, VP permanently condemned Israel's actions against Palestinians and avowed support for the Palestinian people's liberation movement. In addition to this, right-wing dictatorships in the Latin America and US foreign policies were subjected to harsh criticism. Unfortunately the Swedish communists failed to see massive repressions and human right violations much nearer to Sweden than Palestine, Chile or Salvador, e.g on the other side of the Baltic Sea. Swedish left-wing human right watchers never acknowledged any of the crimes allegedly committed in the USSR, or the 'Empire of Evil', as mr Reagan, one of Communism's foes would say."

Faults/POV include:

  • VP is an abbreviation never used. 1967-1991 the party was known as VPK, after 1991 as V or (v).
  • "Unfortunately" is argumentative
  • "Swedish left-wing human right watchers never acknowledged any of the crimes allegedly committed in the USSR" is not substantied. Moreover its unclear whom the text refers to. The party in question or the Human Rights movement in general?

--Soman 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As you might have noticed, i used the following statement: Swedish left-wing human right watchers never acknowledged -- it is clear that I refer to commies, all subsections and sects included, plus other 'left socialists' , those leftists who used to whitewash Moscow acts. Not substanted? weren't there then any crimes in this 'wide and great' country, oversea neighbour of Sweden? a country whose human right violations were known to anyone, except appearantly Swedish and other commies, prctically always ready to believe, whatever lies Moscow told.--Constanz - Talk 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Human Rights movement in general -- do you distuingish between small and capital letters or not?--Constanz - Talk 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
1. I refuse to distinguish between small and capital lEtters. Its an imperialist-funded conspiracy.
2. The issue of substantiation referred to the statement that the Swedish left never protested against human rights abuses in the USSR. Even the hardline SKA protested against human rights abuses in the USSR by the end of the 1950s. --Soman 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really? Could you be more specific? Did they translate Solzhenitsyn into Swedish and promote it? Did they condemn 1949 deportations from Baltic states? Or, let us say, supported the Baltic Appeal 1979, which demanded an end to Soviet occuppation and publishing MRP secret protocols by the USSR?--Constanz - Talk 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note for discussion

A parliamentary motion, signed by Sermin Özükürt and other from the Left Party, on the Human Rights situation in Iran: [5] Motion demands investigations to murders committed by Iranian regime in Sweden, condemns human rights abuses against Kurds, calls elections in Iran fraudlent, criticizes lack of functioning judicial system, etc. --Soman 11:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Another nice note is the Young Left's comments on a TV-show about two years ago, when they said attacks by Iraqi terrorists on red cross personnel were "justified". Itake 14:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
If only you gave reference, I'd add this little piece of leftist philanthropists' creed to the article.--Constanz - Talk 14:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Özürküt's comments

The article at liberalerna.net that Constanz links to appears to be down at the moment. I reckon that its the same as the text availible at [6]

The discussion concerns a debate in EU-committee of the Swedish parliament on October 28. The entire protocol is availible here. Costanz is free to identify which parts of Özürküt's statements that are anti-semitic, or even anti-zionist.

Intervention 61 by SÖ deals with budget issues of the EU. Intervention 87 by SÖ deals with relations to Russia

I believe that it is intervention 95 that is refered to in the press statement of the liberals. Here's the text in full: "Jag tänkte kommentera handelsavtalet med Iran, och sedan har jag en kort fråga.

Vi vet att handelsavtalet är för att ha en kontakt med Iran utan att isolera landet, just för att bevaka utvecklingen inom området för mänskliga rättigheter. Men där finns det ett dilemma. Så länge kriget i Irak pågår och brott mot mänskliga rättigheter pågår är det inte så svårt att ha förståelse för Irans agerande med tanke på den dubbelmoral som EU:s vissa medlemsländer visar gentemot världen. Där finns ett dilemma som EU borde ta itu med.

Där har jag en fråga. Den här dubbelmoralen och att man tar upp mänskliga rättigheter när det just passar själva landets intressen gör att EU:s centrala länders förtroendekapital i den delen av världen har förbrukats. Det vet vi, det är ingen hemlighet, det är ett faktum.

Jag vill gärna höra lite mer reflexion kring detta, för att ha lite mer trovärdig politik när det gäller mänskliga rättigheter från europeiska länders sida."

translated

"I would comment the trade agreement with Iran, and then I have a short question.

We know that the trade agreement is to have contact with Iran without isolating the country, just to supervise the development in the area of human rights. But there is a dilemma. As long as the war in Iraq continues and crimes against human rights perist it not difficult to have understanding for Iran's behaviour considering the double standards that some of the EU member states show towards the rest of the wordl. There is a dilema that the EU should adress.

As long as the war in Iraq continues and crimes against human rights perist -- that's a leftpartisan moving in right direction, US crimes, that's a theme they remember well from cold war days -- and continue exploiting.--Constanz - Talk 14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Here I have a question. This double standards and to bring up human rights just when it suits the proper interests of the country contributes to that the confidence capital of the central [in political sense, not geographic, my comment] countries in this part of the world has been finished. We know this, it is not a secret, its a fact.

I would like to hear more reflexion about this, to have a more credible politics towards human rights on behalf of European countries."

In intervention 96 Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds responds. She refers to the ongoing process with IAEA. She also mentions the comments of the Iranian president on Israel, and concludes by saying that it is unacceptable to have understanding for Iran's actions, including its proclamations.

In intervention 97 Liberal MP Carl B Hamilton (who is the author of the document Constanz linked to) says that he's shocked over the position of the Left Party on this matter, and calls it disgraceful.

In intervention 98 Özürküt responds to the two previous comments:

"Jag kan bara säga att jag inte sade att uttalandet var acceptabelt från Irans sida. Jag försökte problematisera nyliberalismens syn på mänskliga rättigheter och dubbelheten i det hela. Det är ingen hemlighet.

När det gäller uttalandet och Israel finns det en gemensam punkt där. De båda länderna känner sig osäkra inom sina territoriella gränser. Många arabländer har inte godkänt Israels närvaro i världen.

Det finns en gemensam punkt i problematiken när det gäller Iran och Israel. Israel känner sig otryggt och tar därför till aggressiva metoder. Iran känner sig just nu otryggt i och med att det finns en risk för ett anfall mot landet. De länderna har mycket mer gemensamt än vad vi har gemensamt med dem."

translated:

"I can only say that I didn't say that the statement was acceptable on Iran's behalf. I tried to problematize the view of neoliberalism on human rights and the overall double standards. It is not a secret.

view of neoliberalism on human rights yes, yes, right direction (ddo not mention any wrongdoings by the main non-liberal countries concerned here, Iran and Saddam's Iraq)!--Constanz - Talk 14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to the statement [of the Iranian president, my comment] and Israel there is a common point. Both countries feels unsafe within their terriorial boundaries. Many arab countries have not recognized Israel's presence in the world.

There is a common point in the problematic concerning Iran and Israel. Israel feels unsafe and thus resorts to aggressive methods. Iran feels unsafe in that there is a risk for an attack against the country. The both countries have more in common than what we have in common with them."

Iran feels unsafe in that there is a risk for an attack against the country. The both countries have more in common than what we have in common with them." - true, we can't conclude here that this Kurdish emigré suggested wiping israel off the map. Factual inaccuracies are here nevertheless: firstly, Israel does not threaten Iran, but the Iran has brutally threatened Israel (and continues doing so). And to say that a totalitarian regime where non-muslims are sometimes regarded as sinful animals [http://www.cais-soas.com/official_condemnation.htm] has very much in common with a democratic country (-note that militant commies and i think even islamists have their rep.-s in israeli parliament-), where religious freedom is respected -- not true.--Constanz - Talk 14:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

in intervention 99 a Social Democrat MP seconds the comments made by the Foreign Minister, and addresses the Iran issue, without refering to Özükürt's comments.

in intervention 100 Lars Lindbald (moderates) seconds the Foreign Minister and Hamilton, and appeals to 'isolate the Left Party on this matter'. In intervention 101 and 102 centre party and christian democrat MPs seconds previous comments.

In intervention 103 Özürküt responds:

"Jag vill inte gå i polemik i den här frågan. Vad jag försöker säga är att nationella staters territoriella suveränitet borde respekteras för både Israel och Iran. Om vi inte kan tänka de två tankarna samtidigt hamnar vi i en problematik med mänskliga rättigheter och demokrati. Det är vad jag försöker säga.

Det är ingen hemlighet att vi är ganska isolerade i vår tanke för Irak. Vi ser att Irak är ockuperat. Resten av riskdagen säger att det inte är ockuperat. Det är inte så konstigt att vi har olika synpunkter också när det gäller Iran. "

Translated:

"I do not wish to go into polemics on this matter. What I'm trying to say is that the territorial sovereignity of national state should be respected both concerning Israel and Iran. If we cannot think the two thought at the same time we come into a problematic on human rights and democracy. Thats what I'm trying to say.

There is no secret that we are rather isolated in our thoughts for Iraq. We see Iraq as occupied. The rest of the parliament says it is not occupied. Its not so strange that we have different viewpoint also concerning Iran."

In intervention 104 a soc dem MP comments that there is differentiation in criticizing Israel for occupation against Palestinians and wishing to wipe Israel off the map. She seconds the Foriegn Minister, but never refers directly to Özürküt. In Intervention 105 the Foreign Minister sums up, discussion on trade relations with Iran, dialogue on human rights, etc., but does not refer to Özürküt's statements. --Soman 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of text II

Constanz inserted the following: "More typically for Western communist parties, VPK permanently condemned Israel's actions against Palestinians and avowed support for the Palestinian people's liberation movement, which at the time used clearly terrorist tactics. In addition to this, like other communist parties, VPK criticised right-wing dictatorships in the Latin America and elsewhere, while not focusing on permanent repressions and human right violations on the other side of the Baltic Sea. Swedish left-wing human right watchers hardly ever acknowledged any of the crimes committed in the USSR, even after the Gulag Archipelago was published in the West."

I object to this text:
1. It is placed under 1960s. The description of the party stand on Israel/Palestine is factually incorrect. In the 1960s the party was not clearly pro-Palestinian. Hermansson had sided with Maki in the Israeli communist split, on his suggestion the youth wing left WFDY during the controversy over which Israeli group would be represented at the World Festival of Youth & Students.
2. The second sentence, although some wording have been removed ('unfortunately'), still has an argumentative and insinuating tone. Criticism of regimes in Latin America was hardly a monopoly of the communist parties. Moreover, the party was not engaged in Latin American issues in the 1960s, that started more after the 1973 Chile coup. Concerning the Baltics and USSR, VPK positions did not differ dramatically from official (public) Swedish positions at the time.
This is regrettably almost true, as Soc dem gov had accepted Soviet occupation de facto, and was nearing de jure. But Moderates and liberals didn't wholly share this idea, especially as there were baltic MPs among these. Nevertheless, i wouldn't say any other major party approved soviet totalitaruianism or 'der real existierende sozialismus'.--Constanz - Talk 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as Toomas Hendrik Ilves has written: This stood in stark contrast to what some Eastern Europeans have dubbed the ‘Olof Palme School of Human Rights’: attention to human rights violation directly proportional to the distance between the national capital and the locus of violations. Eastern Europe from the late 1960s onward was increasingly preoccupied with the poor state of human rights under (in many cases US-supported) regimes in Latin America and elsewhere.East Europeans wondered why West Europeans seemingly demonstrated less concern regarding human rights violations in their immediate neighbourhood.[7]
Of course the analysis of socialism in the USSR differed from the communist party and the others. However, it was not an issue that actively divided Swedish politics. Ingvar Carlsson stated, on his last visit to the USSR, that Western capitalism did not have monopoly on social system.(not sure about exact wording)
3. The third sentence talks about the left in general (whereas this article deals with a specific party). Moreover, the wording 'crimes committed in the USSR', is a bit odd. Did they (the left-wing human rights watchers) say that there was 0 criminality in the USSR? The wording presupposes certain political foundations, that is unsuitable for a general encyclopedia of world-wide use. Lastly, it attributes far to much importance to a single book. I'm not saying that the Gulag Archipelago didn't have any reprecussions on the public debate in Sweden, but it would be unrealistic to have expected the party to have changed their behaviour drastically based on it. --Soman 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This book had tremendous effect on some western commies, for example Italian CP headquarters were full of party membership cards returned by disiluusioned ones (from a documentary on Solzh.)--Constanz - Talk 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC).
Well, it did not have that impact in Sweden. Remember that PCI had around 1.8 million members (in 1980, not sure about the time of Gulag Arch). If 1% of members resigned, it would be a lot of cards...

All in all, my idea is clear: VPK and other western commieparties have the still ongoing habit of criticising almost every act by their imaginary enemies of imperialism, while at the same time closing their eyes before the atrocities committed by their idols, be it USSR or whatever, now obviously islamic terrorists have been awarded the part of being worshipped by european leftists.--Constanz - Talk 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

all in all, your idea is a systematic bias. VPK did condemn soviet interventions in Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia and Poland. VPK leaders had contacts with oppositionals in DDR. VPK believed in dialogue with the East European parties, and was a strong advocate of reform within the Socialist Bloc. --Soman 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To remind you

2. The issue of substantiation referred to the statement that the Swedish left never protested against human rights abuses in the USSR. Even the hardline SKA protested against human rights abuses in the USSR by the end of the 1950s. --Soman 14:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, really? Could you be more specific? Did they translate Solzhenitsyn into Swedish and promote it? Did they condemn 1949 deportations from Baltic states? Or, let us say, supported the Baltic Appeal 1979, which demanded an end to Soviet occuppation and publishing MRP secret protocols by the USSR?--Constanz - Talk 14:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please note which kind of Soviet repressions in the Baltics were then condemned by the anti-USSR VPK? Before you delete my obviously clear notice that they were hypocrites, when they condemned continuosly right-wing governments thousands of km-s away, while closing their eye before what happened next to them -- pls answer me on the isse.

PK leaders had contacts with oppositionals in DDR. VPK believed in dialogue with the East European parties, and was a strong advocate of reform within the Socialist Bloc. If only you could be more specific, did they communicate with dissidents like Enn Tarto, Aleksandr Solzhenisyn and Andrey Sakharov or 'Stasi dissidents' like Gregor Gysi? Which reforms did they propose -- suggested using less torture, and suggested giving more Volkskammer seats to DDR puppet parties, yeah? --Constanz - Talk 16:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would they communicate with Solzhenitsyn? Is anyone not endorsing him per definition a Stalinist? How popular is he in Russia today?
Popular or not, but no-body has refuted his description of life in Soviet Union (see Anne Applebaum's book for comparison).--Constanz - Talk 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions of reforms dealt with proposals to liberalize press laws, non-interference in other states (like czechoslovakia, afghanistan, poland), to address enviromental issues, etc.

These notions are rather general. Did they propose abolishing censorship for example? Legalising political opposition movements? Definitely not. Non-interference is also a bit dubious word, for SU interfered permanently into the internal matters of Eastern bloc and without it, this bloc would have ceased to exist very quickly. I think the VPK only rejected the most pure forms of aggression, military invasion.--Constanz - Talk 16:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

About the contacts between DDR dissidents and VPK leaders, there is one interesting detail in UG. When Lars Werner was asked about contacts with SED, Werner answers but then goes on to talk about his contacts with oppositionals. Then, I'm the middle of the sentence the scene is cut. That was obviously not a subject of public interest to the makers of UG. The exact quantities of beer drunk by Werner at the DDR embassy was, however, of extreme importance.

Moreover, don't insult yourself. You know very well that 'hypocritic' cannot be NPOV at wikipedia, no matter the circumstance. As to the bahviour of the Swedish communist party and the situation in USSR, there is an issue of the 'bunker mentality' of the party. The party permanently considered itself as being under attack (a perception founded in the fact that the party was virtually completly isolated in Swedish politics for decades, and subject to state persecutions), and thus denounced any criticism of the USSR as imperialist/fascist lies. A consideration that wasn't easened by the rhetoric of the Swedish right-wing, that frequently made statements about the USSR to which there were no proofs (see image for graphic example, frame|Swedish right-wing poster from 1928. Women beening sold as merchandise by bolshevik functionaries). --Soman 20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
and thus denounced any criticism of the USSR as imperialist/fascist lies. it seems that we've reached consesus here (if you want, you may add in the article, that consideration wasn't easened by the rhetoric of the Swedish right-wing,. --Constanz - Talk 15:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've up this article for RfC. --Soman 20:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a right decision. The main dispute seems to be whether it is allowed
1.to include criticism from opposing parties (all except for VP, thus the latter's POV is that of minority)
2.is it appropriate to refer to VPK stance on USSR totalitarian regime (in fact apologetics of it)
3.is it right to emphasise that during the Cold War Swedish communists condemned West for 'undemocratic acts', 'violating human rights', 'waging wars' and 'oppressing their people' (yes, having read tens of politics books from Soviet era, I can imagine their zealous fight against 'US imperialism', 'Israeli aggression', and support for the 'just cause of the colonised Namibia and Palestine' etc) -- VPK doing this, while remaining admirers of the Soviet bloody totalitarian regime (their neigbour next door, so to say) and ideology with the highest number of victims.
If Soman says something doesn't suit to this or that section then of course criticism section is available as well (nevertheless s/he was continously removing text from criticism section, be it the text added by me or User:Itake) --Constanz - Talk 15:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not against having a criticism section as such, but I think the section should correspond to a summary of contemporary mainstream criticism against the party. It should not become a slushbucket of every negative comment raised against the party that is availible on the web. It should not just be copypaste of right-wing blogs, sources that does not separate facts from mere speculations.
    • A reasonale division of content could be criticism on relations with state-bearing parties in Socialist Bloc (relating to the latter part of the Cold War, which is the main focus for media discussion), economic policy and internal dissent (VVV, etc.). I possible disposition would be approx 40-40-20%.
    • The goal of the article cannot be to state a specific political agenda. Constanz may well feel that VPK were hypocrits in their international policy. That does, however, not entitle him to insert accusations in the main article in an unencyclopediatic manner.
    • Regarding Constanz's point nr. 3, I beleive that it is a problematic feature for the discussion. Constanz assumes, based on general dislike of Communism, that VPK has taken certain stands etc., without backing up material.
    • Soman complained: Constanz assumes, based on general dislike of Communism, that VPK has taken certain stands etc., without backing up material. Unfortunately, bringing primary sources did not hinder Soman from erasing criticism...--Constanz - Talk 07:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The history of the Swedish party has its specific characteristics, and cannot be understood without also addressing material relating to its own history.

Yes, the lecture by a Swedish communist leader in praise of Stalin helped to reveal some past characteristics (so did Ny Dag attitude to the german and Soviet aggression).--Constanz - Talk 07:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It did, as previously mentioned, not have identical policies on Palestine as CPSU did in the 1960s. --Soman 17:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish Communists' stance on human rights situation in the USSR

Many regard Mao Zedong now as the biggest mass murderer of the century, Swedish communists --while admitting some crimes -- retain he fought for a noble cause

I maintain that the passage on Sweden's relation to the Baltics doesn't belong in this article. This article is about one specific party, and it is impossible to list all issues and countries the party didn't take a stand on. However, I feel that it is appropriate to make some comments here:

  • VPK had a different relationship to the Soviet Union than the rest of Swedish political scene. The comments on 'Olof Palme school' doesn't really fit into the article. Note that VPK and Olof Palme did not have any good relationship. Although Palme was pursuing progressive agendas on the international arena, he was essentially an anticommunist. Palmes mother came from a Latvian aristocratic family, and Palme had a very antagonistic relationship to the Swedish communists.
  • Sweden's relationship to the Baltics has to be seem at the backdrop of the 2nd world war. Sweden was, although formally neutral, essentially an Axis ally. After the war the country was left with a moral deficit. Moreover all parliamentary parties, except the communists, had taken part in the wartime government. Thus the moral dilema was thus shared amongst the political elite. There was generally no will to question the USSR on the Baltic question, as the Baltic states were perceived as having been on the German side in the war.
  • Constanz claims that it is hypocrisy that VPK criticized human rights abuses in other corners of the world, whereas not crtiticizing human rights abuses in its geographical vicinity. However, there are other perspective on this. Geographic distance is not the only distance. One should not underestimate the effects of the Iron Curtain. What happened on the other side of it was not a mainstream discussion, and one did not have any high expectations in general. Sweden perceived itself as part of the western world. When the Vietnam War (or rather said the American Vietnam War) the absolute majority of Swedes sympathized with the American side. When news came out that the white, democratic USA was capable of exterminating entire villages, turning entire rural areas into concentration camps, etc., it was a traumatic shock, that caused a stern reaction. The South Africa issue was in many ways similar. USA was not 'far away' in the mental map for most Swedes, but Moscow was.

--Soman 07:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you point out VKP's difference from the other Swedish parties on USSR matters - then naturally I may refer in the article to VKP's special position of criticising constantly 'world imperialism' and its 'appalling crimes', while on the other hand (let's keep balance!) being apologists of a totalitarian regime with as well as no human rights. That's my point.
And I haven't heard anything so far of Soman's declared 'VPK supporting dissidents in USSR' and Swedish commies condemning human right abuses (--not in 'capitalist hell' but in 'commie paradise'). --Constanz - Talk
On one hand, the article as it is doesn't really hide the relations between the party and the Soviet Union. On the other, writing what the party which issues that a group has not taken stands on can, by the nature of the question, not be presented in an NPOV way. One could compare with the fact that Moderate Party for decades refused to condemn the apartheid regime in South Africa (their youth wing was the only one not taking part in the 'Isolate South Africa Campaign'), etc. --Soman 17:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Moderate Party for decades refused to condemn the apartheid regime in South Africa yes, there's no reason why one shouldn't note the fact in the corresponding article. Nevertheless, i'm inclined to think that Moderates and Liberals were much more willing to criticise certain bourgois regimes, than were the Swedish communists willing to criticises communist regimes (which were all totalitarian without a single exception).--Constanz - Talk 09:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideology section

There are only two sentences in the article that explicitly describe the party's ideology; meanwhile, a whole section is devoted to criticism. Forget the row over the criticism section for a bit; this article needs an ideology section, so readers will actually know what specific values/motives are being criticized. Since I don't have the time, would anyone else care to start up the section? -- Cheers -- WGee 01:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Request Soman, s/he is a person who promotes communist values here.--Constanz - Talk 15:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
For someone who has referred to the Left Party (which you call the VPK) and its analogues as "commieparties", perhaps you should be a bit more humble in your accusations of bias. Also, please remember that neutrality is subjective; thus, NPOV disputes will naturally arise. Accusing one of intentionally promoting a POV (whether true or not) is not the best way to deal with such disputes, however. -- WGee 01:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
who has referred to the Left Party and its analogues as "commieparties", Fortunately not in any article, i think. There's no point in disguising one's belief in talk. i'm politically incorrect, hence i tend to use such short forms (e.g nazi pro national socialist etc).--Constanz - Talk 08:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, "Nazi" is an accepted term in political science, whereas "commieparties" is a propagandistic term of yours, so there's definitely a difference between these two "short forms". Anyway, back to the matter at hand: is anyone (who can read Swedish, of course) willing to create an Ideology section? -- WGee 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent erasures by Soman

1.Well, it looks like a massive campaign of concealing some aspects of VP has begun. Removing communist crimes/anti-communist section as a whole (do it once more, and i'll list it as vandalism) 2.Is it that Soman believes to have the right to decide which article may be disputed and which not (removal of NPOV tag, when dispute is obvious, I think Cosntanz + Itake against Soman)--Constanz - Talk 17:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. And before you decide, out of anger, to report Soman as a vandal, please read Wikipedia's vandalism policy, which clearly states that NPOV violations are not vandalism. Also, what "entire sections" are you talking about, exactly? -- WGee 20:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV concerns in "Criticism" section

While I wait for a Swedish-speaking Wikipedian to create an ideology section, I will interject my opinion on the Criticism section.

This whole section is a mess, to be honest. Virtually all of the claims, inferences, and arguments in this section are unsourced and are liable to be deleted as per Wikipedia's original research policy. Also, there are a lot of "weasel phrases" and POV terms in this section, which also harm the its neutrality. Although there is no need to (since almost the whole section is orginal research, as of now), I will list my most prominent concerns:


1. The Left party permanently considered itself as being under attack (a perception founded in the fact that the party was virtually completly isolated in Swedish politics for decades), and thus denounced any criticism of the USSR as imperialist/fascist lies, a consideration that wasn't easened by the rhetoric of the Swedish right-wing.

  • According to whom, the person who inserted this sentence? Needs sources.
Ask Soman, she/he claimed it.--Constanz - Talk 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

2. The party chairman Lars Ohly used to be a member of the Swedish-Cuban Friedship Association of which Eva Björklund is a member aswell, an organisation notorious for their support of the regime on Cuba. The party is frequently criticised for their stance towards Israel and terrorism, and the party's youth organisation has funded a terrorist movement (PFLP) in the middle-east.

  • Am I supposed to believe this without any sources?


3. In difference to several other major political forces in Sweden, the Left Party does not possess any major media outlets of its own.

  • The media outlets that are "possesed" by other political forces should be explained in detail and with sources.
Not my insertion, ask Soman once more.--Constanz - Talk 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


4. Criticism against the party is continuously raised in the mainstream media.

  • Is it? This sounds like it could be the opinion of one editor.
You may ask Soman for confirmation.--Constanz - Talk 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

5. Despite some past criticism on the Soviet Union and other former communist regimes, VP does neither approve condemning communist ideology, under which banner all the crimes were committed, nor the past Communist totalitarian regimes itself.

  • Such a statement must be sourced, and is not written in a NPOV. Also, although the Communist Party of the Soviet Union strove to establish communism (hence its name), it was merely a socialist vanguard party. The USSR itself was not communist; rather, it was socialist (in the Marxian sense), for "communism" refers a classless, stateless political organization. It never even claimed to be communist in any of its constitutions. Please read the article on communism and Marxism for a better understanding of my reasoning. This language has to be cleaned up to make it more accurate and neutral.
The USSR itself was not communist; rather, it was socialist (in the Marxian sense), for "communism" refers a classless, stateless political organization. this is original research or pure demagoguery, SU and its satellites are usually referred to as communist regimes. And mainstream western economists equate communist ideology and its bitter fruits.
As for distincrtion between socialism and communis, this seems to be Lenin's demagoguery: In the terminology of Marx and Engels the words communism and socialism are synonymous.[...] The same was true for the practice of all Marxian groups and sects until 1917. The political parties of Marxism which considered the Communist Manifesto as the unalterable gospel [..] For this new party Lenin chose the name Communist Party. The communists were to fight unto death the various European socialist parties, these "social traitors," and they were to arrange the immediate liquidation of the bourgeoisie and seizure of power by the armed workers. Lenin did not differentiate between socialism and communism as social systems. The goal which he aimed at was not called communism as opposed to socialism. Mises, Ludvig von Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis --Constanz - Talk 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
You should actually read Marx's and Engels' work, for they made a clear distinction between the two. Also read the article on communism and the constitutions of the USSR, which prove that the USSR was not communist. Moreover, do not use anti-communist quotes to attempt to define communism.. It is an undeniable fact that communism is a theory which aims for the establishment of a classless, stateless social organization. Regardless, you should should really be procuring sources for your claims about the VP; otherwise, they will be deleted. -- WGee 18:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


Moreover, do not use anti-communist quotes to attempt to define communism.. Mises seems not to be acceptable, for he was definitely opposed to socialism/communism (howeevr, he was scientist and his rebuttal of communism was scientific). But whom ought we to use then? I can't recall any nowadays respected economic scientist who is at the same time not anti-communist...--Constanz - Talk 08:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

6. On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left (which was unanimously against the resolution), Mats Einarsson, representative of VP condemned the resolution brought before Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

  • The goal of the resolution and its premises ahould be explained in brief. Also, MR. Einarsson said: "There have been massive violations of human rights in states ruled by parties and regimes that claimed to be communist. That should be condemned, as should the massive violations of human rights in the name of democracy, freedom, Christianity or civilisation." Meanwhile, the above paragraph says that the VP does not condemn the regimes of Communist parties. Such contradictions are commonplace in original research.
That should be condemned, as should the massive violations of human rights in the name of democracy, freedom, Christianity or civilisation. Yes, but for that we need different reaolutions. It's not the point here. The point is, they were the only force that rejected this resolution condemning crimes committed under the banner of holy communism. As for christianity, i'd sign such a proposal myself if I were a deputy.--Constanz - Talk 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The VP evidently condemns the crimes committed in the name of Communism. Also, the VP rejected the resolution not because the resolution condemned the crimes of Communist Party regimes, but because it portrayed those regimes as representative of the ideology of communism, which is clearly not the case (See Maoism and Stalinism; every wonder why their ideologies are not simply called "communism"?). However, none of this is explained, in a deliberate attempt to slander the VP. Would it be appropriate for me, in an article about Neville Chamberlain, to state that he pursued a policy of appeasment towards Hitler, yet not explain why? Of course not.

7. This, however, is regarded a peculiar statement, as Nazist ideology was once criminalised exactly due to crimes the Nazi regime committed. Furthermore, communist ideology has been regarded as violent and undemocratic in nature by Western mainstream economic and political scientists.

  • This is obviously the opinion of one editor (i.e. orginal research). First of all, Nazism is the ideology invented by Hitler and his associates, so of course the crimes of Hitler's regime represent Nazism. Stalin, Lenin, etc., on the other hand, did not invent socialism or communism. Therefore, the first sentece of the preceding expert is nothing more than the non-sensible opinion of one editor. Moreover, which mainstream economists and political scientists consider communism (the ideology, and not the "Communist Party" regimes of the 20th century) undemocratic and violent? All of them? Needless to say, such a suggestion is ludicrous.
Which? I think even Keynesians, to say nothing about the proponents of free market. Could someone name one recent Nobel prize winner (economics), who regards communism/marxism a serious theory, an alternative to free market?--Constanz - Talk 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The edit does not state that mainstream economists consider communism no alternative to the market economy; it states that mainstream economists consider communism violent and undemocratic. Additionally, unless you provide sources, conduct a world-wide statistical survey, and define your meaning of the word "mainstream", you cannot say that all mainstream economists and political scientists condemn communism as violent and undemocratic.
First of all, Nazism is the ideology invented by Hitler and his associates, so of course the crimes of Hitler's regime represent Nazism. Stalin, Lenin, etc., on the other hand, did not invent socialism or communism thus, no crime of Stalin, Mao Zedong or Pol pot can be attributed to communism, yes? This is a minority opinion again. Serious economic research has proven long time ago, that totalitarianism is the only possible conclusion of genuine socialist/communist (these are synonymes) economics.--Constanz - Talk 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
That is not a minority opinion; it is a fact. I can't discuss anything with you until you learn what communism actually is, so please read the communism article. By reading it, you will discover that the philosophies and ideologies of Communist parties (with a capital C) are different from the philosophies and ideology of communism itself. Communism (which is a theory, for the last time) is not inherently totalitarian or repressive. I would like you to find one piece of communist philosohpy that states something to the effect of: "Communism shall be realized only when the masses have been opressed and slaughtered."
I retain, that making distinction between 'good communist theory' and awful deeds by Stalin atc who considered themselves communists (and exercised Marxist economic conception) is pure demagoguery. The awful Hitlerite crimes are also Nazi crimes, crimes attributed to a certain ultranationalist racist ideology (which, as you know, has much longer history than Hitlerism). Ideologies are to be esteemed according to praxis (remember Lenin's saying: the criteria for truth is praxis. The reality shows everywhere, what the communist ideology is worth).--Constanz - Talk 13:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this article is based on facts, not your anti-communist opinions. And I'm tired of repeating myself: communism is a theory which is independent of the actions of Communist Party regimes. -- WGee 18:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Then repeat please until complete exhaustion (it concludes from your logic): And I'm tired of repeating myself: Nazism is a theory which is independent of the actions of Nazi regime.--Constanz - Talk 08:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

All of the original research in this section should really be removed immediately. For now, however, I will simply insert the appropriate banners and give you two a suitable amount of time to clean up the section (in case you actually have sources readily available). But if no progress is being made, I will delete the unsourced work, and perhaps an editor can keep a draft of the section on the talk page, where editors can propose changes.

Furthermore, with regards to the rest of the article, in-text citations should be made using the preferred Cite.php system, so readers can associate facts and assertions with particular publications. Otherwise, it is difficult to decipher what is original research and what isn't.

WGee 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments

i am in no position to answer all quiries at the moment (trying to use a french keyboard, which feels really awkward and goes superslow). 1. As to several parts of texts originally edited by itake, and later reinserted by contanz, my criticism remain, explained in earlier posts at this talk page. ("notorius", "SVEK", etc.) 2. The text about einarssons position on PACE resolution is clearly overdimensioned. Einarsson in this regards represents not only the Swedish party, but the GUE group as a whole (in which several communist parties are members, like KKE, KPFR, etc.) A separate article could be written about the PACE resolution, its political background and cricism raised against it. 3. "This, however, is regarded a peculiar statement, as Nazist ideology was once criminalised exactly due to crimes the Nazi regime committed". It completly false. Nazi groups are completly legal in Sweden. 4. I repeat that i don't wish that the "criticism" section to become a general slush-bucket of contemporary slander. "Criticism" should reflect mainstream criticism against the party, not material randomly collected from swedish right-wing blogs. 5. As per ideology, the party is socialist and feminist. There is not much more to state. I'd prefer an expanded "Policies" section instead, as ideology cannot be seen as separate from actual political work. --Soman 19:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

3. I actually meant condemning the Nazi crimes etc. Hitlerite ideology is nowadays clearly regarded as abnormal, criminal. 4. well, all the mainstream parties, both left and right criticised the Iran statement. All political forces, except of course for communists and former communists supported the PACE resolution. PACE material was certainly not not material randomly collected from swedish right-wing blogs--Constanz - Talk 08:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

re nr.3: Here we again have a problem with unencyclopediatic language. In an encyclopedia crinimal would mean illegal by established law. In a political speech or a polemical article, criminal might refer to notions perceived as breaking social conventions.
re nr. 4. No, but the references to the Iran-(v)-issue (with the assumption that antisemitic statements had been made) was. --Soman 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of vandalism

"Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism." [8]

Therefore, Soman's edits do not constitute vandalism, Constanz; he was merely removing original research. So instead of disparaging him you should be thanking him for improving the quality of the article.

Also, please do not re-insert any orginal research into the article; there is no justification for it. Instead, keep a draft of the section on the talk page, where you and other editors can attempt to bring it up to Wikipedia standards.

WGee 01:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not regard concealing VP's attitude to the PACE resolution (on crimes of the totalitarian regimes) as improving the quality of the article, because as Marx and Engels would say: The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains[9].--Constanz - Talk 12:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not one of concealing anything. The inserted text on PACE is disproportionate towards the article as a whole. The PACE resolution was passed virtually without any debate in Sweden. Its odd to give it that prominence in this article, especially putting it annexed to 'Criticism'. Moreover, the semantics of the final part is on the edge of POV-pushing ('hetergenous'). My suggestion is that a separate article be created on PACE resolution itself, its background, the procedings of its approval, and the European debate about it. It could be linked from this article. It should be noted that Einarsson speaks on behalf of the GUE group in PACE, not just the Swedish left party. --Soman 12:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As long as we do not have the separate article, one doesn't have the slightest justification for removing it. Also, I have mentioned that VP rep spoke on behalf of similar europ parties (y'have't mentioned it??). And anti-communism is heterogenous (do Hitler and let us say Thatcher, Friedfman etc make up a homogenous group?). If you object to certain terms in the text, you may suggest alternatives. Just removing accurate info is considered vandalism.
Also, The inserted text on PACE is disproportionate towards the article as a whole is not a serious justification for removal. You might re-work the remaining stub sections then. especially putting it annexed to Criticism -- OK, you may find a better place for the text, especially as it is not as controversial issue as the whole Criticism section.--Constanz - Talk 12:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I do not find any reason to declare word 'regime' POV term (this theme has already been covered on Fidel Castrato page), what words need one to use then: 'the countries of people's democracy' or 'states of developed socialism', eh?--Constanz - Talk 12:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
How about 'government'? --Soman 12:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objection to text

Constanz repeatedly inserts text, without answering to the quiries on the talk page. With the risk of being repetitive, here a summary of sentences that I find objectionable:

  • "The party used to take orders directly from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for several years" This is not formulated a criticism, but as a factual statement. As a factual statement, its about as POV one can get.
  • ", and was involved with other communist parties around the world including the Korean Workers' Party. [10]" Again this is not formulated as criticism. "involved with" is a insinuatory statement. Is there any particular reason that the WPK is mentioned, or does Constanz just seek to prove a point?
  • "The Left party permanently considered itself as being under attack (a perception founded in the fact that the party was virtually completly isolated in Swedish politics for decades), and thus denounced any criticism of the USSR as imperialist/fascist lies, a consideration that wasn't easened by the rhetoric of the Swedish right-wing." This is just cut-n-paste from my comment on the talk page. It is not formulated as criticism, and is placed out of context.
  • "that made the partys relationship with communist dictatorships public." Is factually incorrect. The international relations of the party had been public for decades.
Yes, that's true, every normal mind knew that pro-Moscow Communist parties worldwide were financed by the CPSU and executed corresponding policies.--Constanz - Talk 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "party chairman Lars Ohly used to be a member of the Swedish-Cuban Friedship Association of which Eva Björklund is a member as well, an organisation known for their support of the regime on Cuba." Is again not formulated as criticism, but as factual statement.
Then do not delete but remove do another section (I'll do it).--Constanz - Talk 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, googling SVEK, I found out that this abbreviation is commonly used in Swedish. Thus, there's no reason to avoid such popular terms here.--Constanz - Talk 06:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "The party is frequently criticised for their stance towards Israel and terrorism, " factually incorrect. Not a mainstream criticism against the party. View of the party on the issue very much in line with mainstream opinions in Sweden.
  • "the party's youth organisation has supported specifically (PFLP), an [[organisation considered terrorist. " Young Left gave (in 2002?) a symbolic donation to PFLP, to challenge new terror legislation. In wikilink not mention who considers PFLP terrorist.
It is U.S._State_Department_list_of_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations#Current_List_of_Designated_Foreign_Terrorist_Organizations, which considers it terrorist. But soman and WGee may now of course consider it to be a blame by 'US warmongers'. Also, the support is obvious fact ( i do not mention any fiscal support, do I?), the VP youngsters made their symbolic offer, so as to emphasise their support for the PFLP, its goals (Communism), ideology (Marxism plus terrorism) etc.--Constanz - Talk 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "In difference to several other major political forces in Sweden, the Left Party does not possess any major media outlets of its own. Criticism against the party is continuously raised in the mainstream media. During the past years such criticism has focused largely on issues relating to the history of the party and the relations that the party conducted with the state-bearing parties of the Socialist Bloc. Those debates were largely spurred by a documentary broadcast on Swedish TV in 2004 called Uppdrag Granskning." This repeats passage already mentioned in the text.

--Soman 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Constanz, you must address the specific concerns of Soman rather than incite ideological debate if you wish to have your demands reflected in the article. Your comments have not been very productive as of late. -- WGee 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
rather than incite ideological debate True, yes, your demagoguery on good communist ideas and 'unfortunate results by those calling themselves communists' (but they weren't commies in reality, hey?) didn't easen the dismal situation.--Constanz - Talk 05:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit

Again Constanz does not adress the core fact issues at stake, but accuses others of being communists. Few points:

  • Constanz claim "SVEK" is commonly used, refering to a google-search. Has he studied which sites that use that abbreviation?
  • As per stating the analysis of the party towards the former Socialist Bloc states, referring to the PACE resolution is faulty, which emerged in a specific context. Rather it would be interesting to refer to actual party documents on the issue.

--Soman 07:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What's the relevance of SVEK here? Instead of replacing SVEK link, you removed whole criticism section, even that text which we used to have months ago. Again, you are complaining of details and use it as a pretext to remove criticism, no matter if it's accurate and sourced. I'm not the only user here who has met your fervent resistance to endeavours to enlighten some not so nice pieces of VP(K) history and presence.--Constanz - Talk 14:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The 'SVEK'-issue was just one of several issues at stake. Other remain unanswered in previous posts at the talk page. --Soman 14:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Judge yourselves

Rather NPOV factor of the following passage: "This, however, is regarded a peculiar statement, as Nazist ideology was once condemned exactly due to crimes the Nazi regime committed. Furthermore, communist ideology has been regarded as violent and undemocratic in nature by Western mainstream economic and political scientists." ? --Soman 14:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviation

Do note that VP is not an abbrevation used for the party. It abbrevation used is (v). --Soman 14:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soman's recent erasures [11]

  • If you find tone unsuitable, you are only permitted to change the wording. Since the beginning of dispute, first with User:Itake, then with User:Constanz, you have as well as exclusively erased whole passages.
  • There is no justification for removing accurate primary sources on Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
  • Removing paragraphs depicting Swedish Communist Parties attitude to the Soviet aggression against the Baltic states can be regarded as whitewashing. Had I written it in Criticism section, you would have removed it with the pretext of the passages not fitting into the section etc.
  • From June 22, 1941 on, the party was actively supporting resistance struggles in Norway and Denmark. seems more correct than paragraph with no time specified: until the start of German-Soviet war, Western Communist Parties were not struggling against the Germans. This is the fact.
  • Removing passage on Swedish Communists' attitude to Stalin looks like whitewashing to me. The passage could be shortened, but not removed as a whole.
  • Criticism section has been disputed for a long time. Not a single time have you tried to edit the text there; its shortcomings have been a pretext for removing the critical materials as a whole (just as you have now done with Swedish communists attitude to the USSR matters).
  • Also, the disputed claims in Criticism section do have sources.--Constanz - Talk 15:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Where was the 'accurate primary source'? An anecdote into the sociology of Norwegian-German relations? In fact Scandinavia at the time was politically close to Germany, and the comments in Ny Dag should not be overinterpreted.
    • There is hardly any white-washing as to the support given to the soviet side in the war. If you want to include longer quatations, do it as a foot-note.
    • Left Party members are, as individuals, active in many different organizations and associations. The party has no organic cooperation with the Swedish-Cuban Association.
    • The notion that the schism between Nazi Germany and communist parties initiated only at the point of Germany's attack on USSR is a concious misinterpretation of history. The repressive measures taken against SKP did not commence at the time of the Germany-USSR war, nor did the German legation have different stands in different times of the war, nor did SKP cease its cooperation and support to German antifascists in the pre-1941 period.
      • At least in Norway, The Communists were not involved in and could not be involved in resistance activity before June 22, 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.[12] This was the official Comintern line. I presume, the Swedish communists also followed it.--Constanz - Talk 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I dispute the accuracy of that source. The scenario in Norway was far more complex than that article wants to admit (there are currently different evaluations, within the Norwegian left, on the role of NKP at the beginning of the war. Also, there were some internal dynamics within NKP that were determining the actions of the party, rather than the international framework.) I'll get back to the NKP article, once I have more time at hand. --Soman 07:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • As per anecdotes, it could be mentioned that the fact that it was CH who got the task to hold that particular speech as the main party leader Sven Linderot did not show up. Officially he called in sick, inofficial he just didn't want to attend.
The Stalin lecture reflects the official position of the Swedish Communist party of the time. It is factually correct.--Constanz - Talk 16:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
CH certainly took part in that meeting as a representative of the party, I do not dispute that. I dispute that the quote is disproportionate in length. --Soman 07:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My standpoints of passages of text in the 'Criticism' are known to readers of the talk page. I stand by my opinion that those passages removed are to be removed as they do not reflect mainstream criticism against the party. --Soman 15:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
      • A paragragh removed by User:Soman: In 1940, when three Baltic states were occupied by the USSR and the people were subjected to state terror, and mock elections were held Ny Dag wrote on July 8, 1940 that these were "the first free people’s elections" and on July 22, 1940 the paper reported "celebrations without end when the Baltic states became socialist". The executive editor of Ny Dag, Gustav Johansson, (also a long term Communist MP), wrote after a trip through the occupied Baltic states: "I have seen three countries that used to belong to the worst reactionary terror regimes of Europe, transformed into free Soviet republics through a peaceful revolution.", a curious contradiction to reality. ("Resa i Baltikum", cited by A.Küng, see [13]).

I have not been explained the reason for this erasure. This paragraph is sourced -- I used A Report to the Jarl Hjalmarson Foundation seminar on April 13, 1999 By Andres Küng ([14]), where primary sources (Ny Dag) are used. I repeat: the version by Soman has this factually correct material removed. The article no longer contains correct notion on Swedish Communists' attitude to the forced takeover of the Baltic states and Swedish communists' praisal of Stalinist regime set up. I object to it.--Constanz - Talk 16:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason has been given, namely that the party position towards Soviet war effort already stated. Moreover, text has a clear POV. ('mock elections', 'curious contradiction to reality', etc.) --Soman 16:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
mock elections is unfortunately a fact. The elections held under Soviet occupation in the Baltic states 1940 were pseudo-elections, just as always in the Stalinist and post-Stalinist USSR. See e.g #Rein Taagepera, The Baltic States: Years of Dependence, 1940-1990, 2nd edn. 1993, ISBN 0520082281 on Soviet occupation
Your complain reveals either your complete unawareness of the reality or simply the intention to whitewash history with regards to Soviet Union's actions and Swedish communistss attitude.--Constanz - Talk 06:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There are people calling current electoral procedures, undertaken under US military supervision, in Iraq as 'mock elections'. But try to claim that that is NPOV in the corresponding wiki-article. --Soman 07:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, labelling Baltic states before World War 2 as the worst reactionary terror regimes of Europe, and regarding Soviet annexation of the Baltic states by saying transformed into free Soviet republics through a peaceful revolution. is obviously 'curious contradiction to reality', although may-be better wording can be found. The Swedish communists' stance was obviously ridiculous, and hence your erasure.
But this is not the point. The point is, you have done hard work with the aim of removing every paragraph that shows VP not in the best light. This is called violating WP:NPOV, this is called bias and whitewashing.--Constanz - Talk 06:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The term white-wash starts to lose its actual meaning. There are two points to be noted in the current discussion:

a) I do not agree that I'm "removing every paragraph that shows VP not in the best light". Study the edit history of the article, and you'll see various examples of edits made by me that differ for official party history. b) As per Baltic history; I obviously consider that the inclusion of the Baltic states into the USSR went through military annexation. But why is it so shocking that the SKP newspaper described the interbellum baltic republics as "the worst reactionary terror regimes of Europe"? Of course one could question the exact wording (worst?), but if you deny the severeness of white state terror, then aren't just as hypocritical as the people you are calling hypocrites? --Soman 07:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

deny the severeness of white state terror could you please give your sources for the alleged white terror (concerning Baltic states)? Did this 'terror' affect ten or twelve most active communists? Actually, Estonian communists survived this so-called reactionary regime' in Estonia, but those who lived in USSR during the 1930s, suffered really heavy losses due to Stalin's purges.
As for Red Terror death toll, see http://www.fonjallaz.net/Communist-Crimes/Memo/Occupation%20Baltes%20par%20Urss.html or http://www.historycommission.ee. Also, the article here does not directly concern the alleged white terror.--Constanz - Talk 07:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soman's continuous WP:3RR violations

It seems that Soman has decided not to talk any more and just revert; well, hopefully admins take action. As for giving up discussion on the Swedish Communists and their Soviet praisal matter, Soman's decision does not seem peculiar: my paragraphs have solid proof and the motivatioin for erasure is obviously the intention to whitewash these chapters of Swedish Communist Party's history.

Also, Talk:Olof_Palme#User:Soman.27s_comments_revealing_his.2Fher_lack_of_knowledge reveals some problems Soman has faced with his/her endeavours.--Constanz - Talk 11:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

? Is it odd that an editor at wikipedia retracts a former statement? have you not done factually incorrect statements at this article (re: antisemitism and the Iran issue)? Do you not frequently refer to presumptions in your edits? Do you have any source for the "From June 22, 1941 on," passage, or was that just an assumption on your behalf?
As per the 'solid proof', giving a reference does not per se guarantee inclusion in an article. I suppose Constanz actually is aware of that. I have previously given motivations on talk page about my objections to the different text passages I have removed. Most remain underanswered, Constanz main strategy of response has been criticising communism in general.
I did not white-wash the 1953 Stalin memorial. I do, however, not agree that the speech be reproduced. There is wikiquote for such things. However, Constanz frequently seems to underestimate the ability of wikipedia readers to draw independent conclusions. The party held/participated in a memorial meeting at the time of the death of Stalin. Don't you think the readers are capable of understanding the political implications of that? The inclusion of the text has an obvious POV tint, you can please read the original document Constanz refers to, and one will get the context (do study the reference section at the end. the author has, interestingly, left out the publishers name of "Så arbetar kommunistpartierna". Not strange since it was published by the far-right group Contra. Other Swedish litterature almost exclusively published by Timbro).
Andreas Küng is a once MP Riksdag for Folkepartiet Liberalerna. According to Soman, communism mus t not be criticised, for all the critics are non-communists (!).
Also, with the view of The inclusion of the text has an obvious POV tint, you can please read the original document Constanz refers to Soman should not be of the position to refute scientific research results. --Constanz - Talk 11:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
As to the Norway issue, what does the text actually say? It says that there was no apparent hostility between German soldiers and Norwegian civilians at the initial stage of the war. True or false? In fact most Scandinavians were generally sympathetic to Germany at the initial stage of the war (although this is generally hushed down today), and the describtion in Ny Dag is not necessarily false. Moreover, the German propaganda machine repeatedly try to portray the closenesss of German and Scandinavian peoples, which might have affected the behaviour of German soldiers. There are testimonials from Norwegian antifascists that although the German occupation was very much hated, that feeling was not necessarily directed towards the German soldiers. Likewise, whilst the treatment of Norwegian antifascists were just as severe as anywhere else (torture, concentration camps, executions) there was little persecution of the Norwegian civilian population if compared to German behaviour in Eastern Europe. --Soman 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
All in all, Soman has failed to adress the main question from November 2005 on: why is it necessary to remove almost every factually correct statement critical of the Left Party, be it support for Palestine terrorist organisations or the party's Stalinist past. Also, Soman's comments which aim at refuting the paragraphs concerning Swedish communists' attitude to the Baltics occupation question, reveal certain lack of knowledge, which is echoed by Soman's 'bold erasures'.--Constanz - Talk 11:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
In short, to keep the article encyclopediatic and to keep the 'Criticism' section organised and representative of mainstream criticism towards the party. --Soman 12:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

VoA protected this, I've unprotected it (somewhat impolitely; apologies) since I blocked Soman for WP:3RR. As far as I could see form the history, it was a one-against-all edit war. Do let me know if I'm wrong William M. Connolley 20:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[pasted in by me from my talk page - WMC] Hi William, I haven't had any part in the edit-war that has inflamed the article, and had never heard of Constanz before, but there are some things I find kind of suspicious. You described this as a one-against-all edit war: but the "all" could be only one person. In theory they are three users against Soman: User:Constanz, an anon. IP (User:80.235.84.58), and User:Advocatus diaboli; but I would be quite surprised if User:Advocatus diaboli isn't a sock-puppet: this was his first edit [15], and he adds in the edit summary that Soman has violated the 3RR.

1.Proof please. IP adresses do not match 2. it's not so hard to count one's reverts, is it?Advocatus diaboli 11:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that a newbie's first edit would be a revert, and that he already knows the 3RR. As for the anon. editor, it's only slightly less suspect, as he has only two edits made a month ago, on an article also edited by Constanz [16]. I also noted that Advocatus Diaboli has made a new edit, this time to defend a redirect made by Constanz and whose deletion has been proposed by Soman. For all these reasons, I believe a user check should be made to see if Advocatus Diaboli is a sock-puppet of Constanz. Have care.--Aldux 21:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. This is developing into a bit of a mess, cos I jumped in. Apologies all round. So... I've re-protected it; a review of the edit history shows I was wrong. Apologies in particular to Soman (but, he still broke 3RR). I've reverted AD's last edit, because as A says above, AD is almost without doubt a sock. Um... William M. Connolley 21:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a "one-against-all" edit war, for I largely agree with Soman regarding the criticism section (though I suppose I have not been entangled in this dispute for as long as others). I've been trying to help resolve the dispute as best I can, but I've been experiencing difficulty because of Constanz's insistence to argue ad hominem. Also, some of Soman's erasures were not in the interest of dispute resolution, even though the infromation he removed was unencyclopedic. -- WGee 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not a "one-against-all" edit war -- well, generally, it has been one against two war, User:Somans erasure war first against critical material entered by User:Itake and then by User:Constanz; and the one warring against these two has now found some support from you. And please do note that this so-called unencyclopediac material is sourced, but unfortunately these materials prove smth against your POV.--Constanz - Talk 05:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Constanz, I told you explicitly to locate sources and insert them into the text of the article; you chose not to. Thus, I regarded the criticism section as original research. I would have been opposed to the outright removal of the material if it was sourced at the time. -- WGee 00:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
There are two sources, which I used; thus, at least your complaining of the whole section being original research is your fabrication. Constanz---213.219.97.236 09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Those two sources did not cover all of the controversial claims you made. Perhaps I should have said 90% of the section was OR, if you'd like to be precise. -- WGee 03:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert war

  • That's probably how it all started: November 3, 2005 The criticism is not sourced, but as we later see, it is almost exclusively accurate. Soman, however, doesn't allow much criticism in the article.
  • 15:35, November 3, 2005 well, sending greetings to Kim Il Sung is hardly an invention by a critical user, also, the support for Palestine militants is certainly true. Symbolic offer by Young Left to PFLP [17], also support for FARC and opposing inclusion of these two organisations in terrorist organisations list [18].
  • The first source says: "Neither were charges brought under a new Swedish law on financing criminal acts, which requires proof that the purpose of the donation is to support such acts. [Prosecutor] Ihrman said that: 'The fact that the money was intended to be used for humanitarian purposes has played a role...'"

Thus, the inclusion of the source, particularly without explanation, is not pertinent to criticism of the party and amounts to slander. One is innocent until proven guilty, and this Statewatch organization (whose reputability I seriously question) is not in the position to decide which person "clearly" violated EU or Swedish law. The criticism section is not a venue to cite every source that portrays the subject negatively. -- WGee 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And so on. And so forth

But the difference as of now could be seen here current version without criticism

  • Soman's version has excluded quotations from Swedish Communists' magazine Ny Dag, and replaced it with speculation like: It considered that the Western powers were using the war to strengthen their own interests, and refuted plans of a British invasion of Norway
  • Could you please provide the source from which you procured the quote, so that other editors can examine its reputability and relevance? -- WGee 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Difference is available, see it before complaining (sources are included). -- Const. --213.219.97.236 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Soman has removed whole factually correct and sourced paragraph on the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States in 1940 and the praisal by Swedish communists. I believe that historical stance of a political party should not be hidden. The current version has no mentioning of this stance (the 'lack of sources' for criticism used to be Soman's main pretext a while ago...)
  • I'd be interested to see this factually correct and sourced paragraph; perhaps you can insert it into the talk page? I'm not familiar with this paragraph, so I'm not sure if Soman's removal of it was justified or not. -- WGee 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
See version difference link, for Jesus' sake.In 1940, when three Baltic states were occupied by the USSR and the people were subjected to state terror, and mock elections were held Ny Dag wrote on July 8, 1940 that these were "the first free people’s elections" and on July 22, 1940 the paper reported "celebrations without end when the Baltic states became socialist". The executive editor of Ny Dag, Gustav Johansson, (also a long term Communist MP), wrote after a trip through the occupied Baltic states: "I have seen three countries that used to belong to the worst reactionary terror regimes of Europe, transformed into free Soviet republics through a peaceful revolution.", a curious contradiction to reality. ("Resa i Baltikum", cited by A.Küng, see [19]) Feel free to give your proved estimation on this paragraph concerning Baltic history. -Cns--213.219.97.236 09:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • When did communist parties start supporting resistance against German occupants? Soman replaced From June 22, 1941 on, the party was actively supporting resistance struggles in Norway and Denmark with a indefinite At the same time the party was actively supporting resistance struggles in Norway and Denmark.
The latter is factually incorrect, for there was as well as no resistance participation by the communists until June 22, 1941. Norwegian communists did not participate active resistance until June 22, Comintern's line was neutrality. How then could Swedish communists help the Norwegian comrades?[20]
  • This geocities source is absolutely unacceptable; is Wikipedia an online encyclopaedia or a collection of obscure personal websites? Please provide reputable sources to back up your claims. -- WGee 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Whole paragraph removed In 1953, Joseph Stalin died. Swedish communist party Central Committe member C.-H.Hermansson, said on this occasion: "Stalin is one of the most brilliant scientists of all times etc. We really needn't have the whole lecture here (it's really ugly, hence the removal!). But we should remember that it was the official line of all the parties of World Communist Movement at the time. Who doesn't believe, might see Les funerailles d'un dieu, a documentary on Stalin's death and funerals, where all the admirers are there (aired by French L'Histoire).
  • Could you please provide the source of this quote? Also, by 1953, after the dissolution of Comintern, the "world communist movement" was quite heterogenous; in other words, the opinion of one person/organization would not have represented the views of all communists, as you claim. -- WGee
  • Also removed: The party chairman Lars Ohly used to be a member of the Swedish-Cuban Association, an organisation known for their support of the regime on Cuba Soman claimed there was no organic realtionship between these two organisations; however, the party chairman was member of the group, and the orientation seems to be similar (I doubt if other politicians of any other Swedish party are members of the association).
  • I saw no sources to support this claim, so there was no justification for its inclusion in the article. However, even if the sentence was true, Soman would be correct: the personal past of the party leader does not necessarily represent the views of the party (contrary to what was implied in the article); rather, the party's charter or manifesto represents the party's ideals. It seems to me that you are trying to locate every possible piece of information that disparages the Left Party in any way. -- WGee 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed whole paragraph from the criticism section, depicting different aspects of Left Party's and its forerunner's relationship with the USSR and mentioning the supported Palestine organisation. The paragraphs have sources.
  • You'd have to refresh my memory regarding that paragraph. -- WGee 01:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Soman has replaced the whole section with a small paragraph, no longer than a usual intro: During the past years such criticism has focused largely on issues relating to the history of the party and the relations that the party conducted with the state-bearing parties of the Socialist Bloc. Those debates were largely spurred by a documentary broadcast on Swedish TV in 2004 called Uppdrag Granskning. this is obvious attempt to minimise criticism. (Why do we have the criticism section then? so as to complain of the party not having its own media [21]?
    • On former communist regimes the declaration by a left party deputy is a fact and the resolution is a fact. Facts are also Left Party's previous attitude to the USSR and its current stance. Somehow, Soman disapproves mentioning it in the article concerning Left Party.--Constanz - Talk 06:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
When you inserted several of these points into the article, they had a clear anti-communist/anti-leftist POV and were unsourced. It is irrevelevant whether you consider something a "fact"; what is important is that these so-called facts are sourced and portrayed neutrally. -- WGee 00:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just, to explain my absence from the discussion, I'm currently abroad with little internet access. Briefly, I do not disapprove of mentioning current analysis by the party towards USSR and other socialist states, but I believe that the statement on the PACE resolution does not reflect it sorrectly. For a better and more complete analysis by the party towards the USSR, there is a publication called 'Lik i Garberoben?'. There should be a reference to that publication in the article, with a summary of its content. --Soman 13:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I've added RfC, considering the recent additions and erasures.--Constanz - Talk 07:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is criticism even appropriate?

Please read Liberal Party (Utah) and Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago), the only articles concerning political parties that reached featured status. Also, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_controversial_articles. There is no need to include "criticism"; simply include the party's relevant history and ideals, and let the reader draw their own conclusion. Do not intently dig up every piece of information that disparages the Left Party, for it is endless, just as criticism is endless against the Republican Party (United States), for instance (hence there is not a criticism section is that article, even though the Republican Party is one of the most controversial in the West). Clearly a criticism section is not appropriate in this case. -- WGee 01:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to include "criticism"; simply include the party's relevant history and ideals - but that's what i tried to do, e.g Baltic states case and Ny Dag passages showing the party's willingness to accept comintern line(s). Pure facts relying on primary sources, no speculation. I personally think the party's history was closely connected to CPSU until 1960s. Constanz --213.219.97.236 09:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
In this talk page, present any information that you feel will benefit the article, so long as it sourced. Then we can begin to deliberate a solution to this dispute. You've probably done this before, but can you do it again for organisational purposes? -- WGee 02:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As aleady noted, version difference is available and links provided. Also, I'm currently planning to have some wikifree time, and more improtantly, I hesitate to carry on the dispute until some other users have expressed their opinion.--Constanz - Talk 09:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
With regards to some of your other comments, I understand that you are annoyed, but please remain civil. -- WGee 02:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Criticism might not necessarily be needed, but if the criticism section from this article is removed then it should be removed from all other political parties in Sweden aswell. Itake 07:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
What is important is that we don't violate wikipedia policy by giving undue weight to hostile criticism. Speaking bad of a polititical party is simply too easy, eaven using source; to make an example, in Italy a leftist would selectively choose hostile source to demonise Forza Italia, while a rightist would do the same with the Democratici di Sinistra. And I must honestly confess, Constanz's selection of sources appears considerably biased to me. Making sourced statements is simply not enough.--Aldux 09:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
But see the Italian communist party (the historical one) article: the connection between CPSU and ICP are shown, which is not the case here. Constanz and Itake have been trying to put it straight; Forza Italia is an independent party, which the swedish communists were not. Hence the need to cover its position on world communist movement some decades ago. Advocatus diaboli 11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
In this year's Italian elections, Forza Italia contested in alliance with Neo-Fascist groups (not just AN, but also smaller factions like Alternativa Soziale). Moreover, there were frequent accusations of corruption and mismanagement. I think Aldux's point is that only leftwing sources were used to describe FI, then you'd have an article stating that its a flock of quasifascists, mafiosos and populists. That would hardly conform to NPOV. Moreover, I fail to see the essence of "Hence the need to cover its position on world communist movement some decades ago". If you actually read the text, then you will see that the greater part of the History chapter actually directly or indirectly relates to developments in the World Communist Movement. The problem of that section is at present the opposite, namely that it pays little importance to the role played by the party in Swedish domestic politics. --Soman 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Constanz's is far from the only one who has troubles with Soman's edits. I myself tried to make the article more neutral with criticism several times, most of time Soman simply reverts all the edits without even arguing for it. Criticism is always biased, thats only natural. Itake 13:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting reasoning. "far from the only one" = one of two. "without even arguing for it" = read this talk page. --Soman 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
"far from the only one" = one of two. Add one here for granted! Advocatus diaboli 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A typical response by Soman. But he's right about one thing, read this talk page. Compare it to the edits, and you will see what I'm talking about. Similar, check the edit history of this article. You will also see what I'm talking about, more then two. Itake 15:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
And note that the version by Soman is surely not NPOV -- constantly emphasising the dissenting opinion of VPK regarding CPSU after WW2, but no mentioning of approving Stalinist policies before the war. 1968 Czechoslovakia etc have been mentioned, but supporting occupation of Baltic states is censored; world crisis are mentioned when VPK chose a dissenting line (with the exceeption of Hungary 1956). But VPK support for USSR during the Berlin crisis 1948-9 etc?--Constanz - Talk 10:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I beleive that the current text has a good structure. Constanz questions its rationale. For me it is simple. There is a chronological structure in it, based on that the party from the mid-1920s was firmly connected to the Soviet side and gradually distanced itself from it over the decades. The mentioned historical examples are all parts of that development. The examples given are also those of historical importance to the development of the party. There was hardly a Baltic question in the party, whereas the Finnish Winter War was extremly problematic and had a large impact. Another issue that needs to be included is Czechoslovakia 1948. --Soman 16:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I see most of the sections are stub, and do not show in detail how closely VPK followed Moscow orders. Looking back the talk history, Soman objected to calling 'left party took direct orders from moscow', but as Constanz' later citations show, they really followed CPSU advice to an absurd level.Advocatus diaboli 11:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes this party did not have Baltic question, but that's because they did approve and praise the occupation. It proves, once again, how the party followed Moscow orders. And support for nazis as well (the comintern line from 1939-41). So far, Soman has got almost everything removed from the article, and Itake and Constanz have changed their approach throughout the time. I think more compromise from Soman should be excpected. I think that instead of criticism section we can create VP(K) and USSR relationship section, which reports both taking direct orders, praising soviet and north korean dictators-- and also the dissent with international communist movement and dissenting steps by swedish communists, which led to refuting some of the marxist-leninist orthodoxy. - unsigned comment by A.D.
I myself tried to make the article more neutral with criticism several times - Itake
That is an oxymoron: when you insert highly selective criticism without a defence of the party, neutrality doesn't exist. The critcism section precludes neutrality because it is intended to give the reader a negative impression of the party. In this statement, you are implying that criticism is nessecary because the rest of the article portrays the VP favourably, which is simply not the case. Even if it was the case, the appropriate course of action would be to make the article more objective, and you don't do that by adding more subjective information. -- WGee 20:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with WGee. Soman's ideas seem interesting; the Russo-Finnish war should certainly be included. As for the pact, considering its importance, I don't think it would be wrong to add a few other lines at least on the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, considering its importance and the crisis that in many countries it created between the party cadres and the base. Also the 1956, another critical moment can be expanded. But I disagree about a criticism section, and also of a VP(K) and USSR relationship section; the relations with USSR should not be separated from the general history of the party.--Aldux 21:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A.D. completly misses the point, namely that the question at stake is what was an issue in Swedish politics at that time and not would you would like to have been an issue. The impact of Finnish-Soviet war was tremendous in Swedish politics at the time, whereas the Baltic had a much lesser impact. I'm not talking just about SKP, but about Swedish society at large. Thousands of 'volunteers' were mobilized to fight against the USSR in Finland and a massive support programmes were initiated (in reality, 'neutral' Sweden hardly acted as a neutral country in this case). Even sectors of the left, like Flyg's Socialist Party and some syndicalists, joined the Finland volunteers (which would later lead those sectors and individuals to make drastic political turns). SKP was the sole force in Swedish politics representing a different view on the Finland war, a pretext used to unleash violent attacks against the party. The impact of the war in Baltic republics cannot be compared with this. --Soman 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As to the theory of the Nazi-Communist Alliance

Please see [22], a cover of the SKP publication Arbetar-Tidningen from March 1940 (i.e. well before the war between Germany and the Soviet Union), portraying Nazis as whining pigs. --Soman 11:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as important a notion as their initial support for Nazi invasuion in Norway, as mr A.Küng reveal by citing the old newspapers.--Constanz - Talk 14:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
??? --Soman 14:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not start it over again

I object to removing absolutely encyclopedic passages on VP(K)'s historical stance. We mustn't reveal only its dissenting opinions with the World Communist Movement, but also acts done in line with Comintern and Moscow.--Constanz - Talk 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molotov-Ribbentrop and KP support for Soviet line 1939-1940

Constanz inserted this passage of text, which I opt to remove: "Consequently from the party's stance on Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, VPK initially retained nutrality towards Nazi aggression in Norway. Ny Dag wrote on April 24 1940: "There is no hatred towards the German soldiers. One frequently sees Norwegian workers and German soldiers in friendly discussions on streetcorners or in beer parlours."" First of all, its grossly incorrect to label the party VPK when speaking of 1940. Moreover, I consider the quote being used in an insinuatory manner. To say that the Norwegians didn't hate the German soldiers is far from the same as to say that the party was in favour or neutral towards of "nazi aggression". I have previously on this talk page stated this opinion. I think that its better to use official party texts, as opposed to newsclippings when giving citations in the article.

I would like to add though, that I do not oppose including a passage the party's stance towards the war in Norway in the article. Developments in Norway was of central interest in Sweden at the time, unlike the Baltic example. --Soman 15:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I consider the quote being used in an insinuatory manner. ha-ha but the citation by which the communists explained their support for MRP may be regarded --according to this logic-- as 'used in whitewashing manner'?
First of all, its grossly incorrect to label the party VPK when speaking of 1940. yes my mistake, I'll change it to Communist party.--Constanz - Talk 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm... Developments in Norway was of central interest in Sweden at the time, unlike the Baltic example. does not seem to make much sense: how were developments in Czechoslovakia 1968 etc of central interest to developments in Sweden? Anyway, I'll keep an eye on your reverts to come and try to find out more about Norway business. --Constanz - Talk 15:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, supporting Soviet occupation in Baltic states is characteristic to party's policies in 1940s, just as opposition to Soviet invasion to Czechoslovakia may be regarded as characteristic to VPK developments in 1960s.--Constanz - Talk 15:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Prague 1968 was in many ways a political watershed. For VPK the experiments of Dubcek was seen in a pattern of evolution of a new form of socialist state, a development which the party actively supported. The Soviet crack-down would spark the second most important split (after that of 1929) inside the party, with the development of the Flamman Moscowite tendency. --Soman 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit

I would like to point out that my latest reversion is not only an issue of content but also of disposition of the article.

  • I suggest rearranging the chapters, so that 1939 falls into the same as the rest of the war.
  • Constanz passage on the Baltics is in the middle of other texts, with little relation to each other. I suggest that there be a thematic rearranging. The issue of the general line of the party towards the war ought to be in the beginning, and wartime developments later in some sort of semichronilogical order.
  • I propose exchanging Constanz's quote with the one from Ny Dag of July 26. The reason is that it appears that that quote relates more directly to party policy than the other. In any case the text needs to be studied in original, my faith in Küng's skills as an objective translator is, well, limited. --Soman 15:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with moving paragraphs if necessary but not removing as a whole. As for my faith in Küng's skills as an objective translator is, well, limited. you seem to miss the fact that the person is a native Swedish speaker and has been working in radio and been member of Riksdag. I think, his English must be fluent.--Constanz - Talk 15:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't question his language skills, rather his objectivity in translating. --Soman 15:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I question your objectivity here: how is it possible to mistranslate it (actually you know as well as i do, that the party's line was exactly such as the citations reveal. That's why you have been removing these).--Constanz - Talk 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Anti-communists needn't be subjective when translating: they have lots of material to use anyway see Pravda headlines.--Constanz - Talk 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I might be biased at times. It based my assumption on a) the title "Communism and Crimes against Humanity in the Baltic states" and b) that it was a report prepared for the Jarl Hjalmarsson Foundation, an organization attached to the Moderate Party. --Soman 15:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
a) communist crimes against humanity as objective facts do exist regardless of biases b) there is simply no use of presenting lectures on communist crimes to VP et al similar organisations, is there? Seemingly, it wouldn't change anything--Constanz - Talk 16:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edit II

the baltic issue was of marginal importance to the party at the time. Two quotes are now in the text. I propose using the one which specifies the general line of the party towards the war as the primary one. Moreover, I did some minor language checks based on the Swedish version (where the text, I suppose, are in original). --Soman 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

the baltic issue was of marginal importance to the party at the time yet it was a pure and simple example of the party line at the time (see above, on Czech comparison)--Constanz - Talk 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
But the party line is already explained in the first quotation. --Soman 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
theory is expressed in the first, practice in second.--Constanz - Talk 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how the first quote would be 'theoretical'. --Soman 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] on disposition

please preserve some sense of dispotional unity in the article when editing. Look at [23] The MRP is now mentioned twice, in a seemingly unrelated way. I would suggest Constanz to try to read something else about the history of the party than just a highly selective collection of quotes. --Soman 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My continued additions

Yes, Itake was right again on Korea issue: På VPK:s 28:e partikongress 1987 skrev partiordförande Lars Werner följande devota hyllningstelegram till den totalitära regimens ledare Kim Il Sung: ”Vänsterpartiet kommunisterna och jag personligen gratulerar Dig hjärtligt med anledning av Din 75-Brsdag och vill uttrycka vår höga värdering av de stora insatser Du gjort under decennier för Koreas arbetarklass och folk och i den världsomspännande antiimperialistiska kampen. etc! Lägg ned Vänsterpartiet!--Constanz - Talk 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Right? No-one disputed whether VPK sent telegrams to Korea. Itake's additions were highly insinuatory and POV worded. Thus tehy were removed. --Soman 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources used

It ought to be mentioned that the latest "source" added as a reference by Constanz [24] carries the title "Close down the Left Party!" (Lägg ned Vänsterpartiet!). I suppose that is a highly objective article. --Soman 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is demagoguery. I did not even cite pasages by the authors of this source, I only used it as transmittent of original primary sources. As you might expect, I -- unlike you -- can't look up those commie newspapers myself. According to you (from the beginning of discussion on!), every criticism against VP(K) is invalid, if it comes from its opponents. But which sources can we cite then? VP itself criticising its positions and history? We all know taht socialists criticise aspects of free market economy and vice versa, but on the grounds of your thesis, such criticism is a priori invalid.
Also, though you recently turned down an offer by Advocatus Diaboli to establish VP(K) and USSR relationship section, I think that smth of the kind might be set up. It is you who actually suggested creating VP(K) and International relations section (I found the sentence somewhere in the beginning of the talk page).
Had you not started removing Criticism section, where opponents' views would have been clearly detached from party's historical outlines, we probably wouldn't be in such a difficult situation as we are now.--Constanz - Talk 07:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not misinterpret me. I would prefer to use the references directly to the original source rather going via a link to a site which quality compromises wikipedia's integrity as an encyclopedia (this refers mainly to the 'Close down the Left Party' article).
My point is that the articles you've used (Andres Küng, (fp), Close down the Left Party) are highly biased in the selection of quotes and interpretation of quotes. What are your selection criteria when searching for information? Have you at any point tried to add any info to the article which did not serve purpose of pushing the POV that SKP/VPK were inherently evil?
How many critical citations have you presented do far? Also, imagine that I start criticising you by pointing out that almost all the articles you create are about left-wing movements world-wide, some influential, others marginal? Is that an argument?--Constanz - Talk 08:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
On several accounts my edits in this article differentiates from official party history (such as CC on MRP 1939, the early 1950s inner-party disputes, the set-back of the Vietnam policy of the party). Moreover, I maily write about leftwing groups, but not exclusively. I'm well able to write about non-left groups without starting to induce ranting. My interest is the expansion of availible material on wiki, not to push a POV. --Soman 09:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, I've made contributions to left wing articles such as Mitterrand as well, and surely not from inflammatory way.--Constanz - Talk 11:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not, in any way, say that only party sources be used. A lot has been written about the party, including many academic sources. I would be to the help of the article is references were not based on political demagogery but on assesments of actual history.
As to the International Relations chapter, I had proposed to make a collective effort at Left Party (Sweden)/temp. Up to this date, noone really bothered about it. --Soman 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for notification, I was unaware of it!--Constanz - Talk 08:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOU 2002:93

Constanz uses SOU 2002:93 as a source. The report is availible is full at [25]. On page 211 there is no quote to back up the claim that Constanz has made in regards to funding from DDR. --Soman 09:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

funding from broderpartier: Historikern Lars Björlin har visat att SKP fick del av detta stöd mellan åren 1951 och 1964. Partiets andel av utbetalningarna uppgick till cirka 1 % av hela bidragssumman. Det största beloppet var 150 000 dollar (1963/64). I övrigt varierade bidragen till SKP från 20 000 (1951) till 70 000 dollar (flera år mellan 1956 och 1962).[26]--Constanz - Talk 09:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote you have presented doesn't say anything, since it doesn't say from were the money came. You need to include the preceding sentence for this quote to make any sense. The quote talks about a Romanian Trade Union Fund, out of which SKP would have received about 1% of total grants. The quote does not in any way relate to DDR, which was claimed in the article. --Soman 13:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Moreover there is also another comment in the same article. "Från kommunistiskt håll har uppgifterna om utländskt understöd

mötts med skepsis. Invändningarna har bland annat gällt att utbetalningarna från rumänska fackföreningsfonden inte behöver ha avsett kontantstöd till partiet utan bekostande av de svenska studenternas utbildning vid partiskolorna i Moskva. Så länge ingen fullständig redogörelse finns för vad som skett efter det att Rumänska fackföreningsfonden fattat sina beslut är den tolkningen - och andra liknande – möjliga." translation:

From communists the details of foreign funding has been met with scepticism. The objections have in involved that the payments from the Romanian Trade Union Fund is not be be considered as a cash support to the party but financing of the education of Swedish students at the party schools in Moscow. As long as there is no complete presentation of after what has happended after that the Romanian Trade Union Fund has taken its decisions that interpretation - and other similar ones - is possible." --Soman 13:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
har forskarna kunnat konstatera att SUKP regelmässigt från 1951 givit ekonomiskt stöd till broderpartier runt om i världen via den s.k. Rumänska fackföreningsfonden I thought that CPSU distributed its aid via Romanian trade unions. SED is mentioned below.--Constanz - Talk 13:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
SUKP is CPSU in Swedish. The passage about DDR below is a different passage, in which no sums are mentioned. --Soman 13:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
SUKP is CPSU in Swedish Yes, even I know it, that's why I noted it here. I think I should have changed SED in article into CPSU.--Constanz - Talk 14:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
But the problem of taking quotes out of their context remains. It is mentioned in the article that on one hand claims have been made concerning founding from CPSU (in a seemingly irrelevant note, was it the CPSU or the Soviet state that made the financing?) but on the other hand such claims have been contradicted. The cut-n-pasting of (fp) (the article you initially linked) is consciously avoiding to mention any details that would not support their own thesis. That however, is a press release of a political party and not an encyclopediatic article. --Soman 14:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
was it the CPSU or the Soviet state that made the financing? CPSU equalled Soviet state, I may confirm you in this respect!!!!--Constanz - Talk 14:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of liasons between the Soviet state and CPSU. What I found interested is that the author of SOU 2002:93 chosed to say that CPSU funded the fund, as opposed to the Soviet Union as a state. I'm curious as to why, but only for anecdotal interest. --Soman 14:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected again

At least 3 editors have broken 3RR on this... so I've re-protected it. Discuss: William M. Connolley 13:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And I unfortunately counted that neither Constanz, nor Itake nor Aldux broke the rule (unlike Soman, who managed to revert 5 times).--Constanz - Talk 13:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
By my count, you and It have both broken 3RR William M. Connolley 13:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
But even if not, this is still lamentable edit warring. How about trying to discuss the page state, instead? William M. Connolley 13:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
We've been discussing all the time; I'm still inclined to think that I personally have reverted <ref> ..</ref> from footnote into main text only 3 times. May-be we really need mediation??--Constanz - Talk 13:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected again to see what happens William M. Connolley 11:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations from Swedish

Leaving aside my objections of inclusion of various passages, I thought it might be of interest to explain why i chose to use the Swedish version of Küng's article as a reference. I suppose Küng uses the original quotes in his Swedish articles. I've read through the Swedish version, and my translation is slightly different. The differences are not very major, but I believe that Wikipedia should strive for as exact translations as possible.

  • Küng translates 'terrorländer' as 'terror regimes'. Länder is the Swedish plural of land (country). Regime is regim in Swedish.
  • My translation includes the passage 'in the past', which is present in the Swedish original.
  • An error in my own text, is that 'Soviet' should perhaps be in lower case. 'Soviet' is in this context not a nationality, but a political description.
  • Concerning the Ny Dag article (going into semantics) Küng changes the order of words in the sentence. This is usually perfectly ok, since English and Swedish grammar is not identical. But in this case there is a shift in emphasis. Küng's translation brings the Soviet intervention into forefront (putting 'aided by...* first in the sentence), instead of putting the emphasis on the liberation of the border states (which is the expressed meaning in the original article).

Concerning the (fp) article,

  • 'bakslag' should be translated as a 'set-back'. 'slag' on its own, however, means 'blow'.
  • Whether the invasion of Norway was 'Nazi' aggression or not can be discussed. Were all acts of Germany 1933-1945 'Nazi' acts? I believe that in these cases its preferable to use national denomation rather than political ephitets (compare 'communist invasion' as opposed to 'Soviet invasion', 'U.S. warfare' as opposed to 'imperialist warfare, or 'Israeli occupation' as opposed to 'zionist occupation). --Soman 09:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funds

I gnerally agree with Soman's edits; I don't see any reason for fulling of quotes the history section. I'm not certain I can agree with the removal of this: "According to historian Lars Björlin, East Germany had funded Swedish communist party and organisations close to it with annual allowance ranging from 20,000$ to 150,000$.[1]" Orthodox Communist parties have long been financed by USSR, and this is a fact of some relevance, not a criticism, but a fact which should be put in the history section, while the criticism section should simply be removed.--Aldux 13:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge that the actual SOU document (which is the source of the (fp) document, be used as reference) insted of the (fp) press release. That particular sentence is erroneous. The sum of 20-150 000 dollar referes to the Romanian Trade Union Fund, not GDR. I propose leaving out the sentence, since the actual situation is far more complex than that. It only mentions a sum of money, but not anything about its usage. As previously stated, there is a point that the fund was not used as a direct party support but a scholarship for party members to study in the Soviet Union. SOU 2002:93, which is a government publication, clearly states that such an interpretation is possible. --Soman 13:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, SOU 2002:93 provides an interesting reading. I think it can be a good source also for other parts of the article. What should be noted are the following a) foreign funding of political parties was illegalized in 1940 and b) throughout decades of massive espionage against the party (which is explained in detail in SOU 2002:93), no criminal case against was ever brought up on this issue. --Soman 13:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
What you said in your last message appears right to me, and we can speak of it. If the paricular topic you removed may be untrustworthy, all the better if we can find some other source; but I think we should speak of the topic, searching sources, and we should speak when it ended, if it ended before 1989, and if the allocation of funds was used to favour the most pro-russian currents, like in Italy in the Berlinguer and Occhetto years.--Aldux 14:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Pages 211-217 of SOU 2002:93 relates to the issue of suspicions of foreign funding. Pages 247-251 deals with the VPK-APK split, and the contacts of the Flamman group with USSR/GDR. P. 254 mentions that SÄPO suspected (in 1985) that APK had received funding, but that their report was inconclusive. P. 255 mentions press reports from 1992 that APK had received Soviet funding. --Soman 14:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
SOU 2002:93 says that Björlin claims that SKP benefitted from the Romanian Trade Union Fund from 1951-1964. There is no mention that APK would have benefitted from the same fund later. It is however mentioned that the Fund was in existance until the late 1980s, but that gradually the different contributing countries cancelled their payments. --Soman 15:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of ADs edit

To explain my recent reversion of ADs edits:

  • I refuse to except a source with the title 'Close down the Left Party!' as an authoritative source (concerning the sentence 'Many party activists retain...') on the internal conditions of the party. I hope this ought to be clear to all.
  • The Björlin/funding issue is discussed above. Please leave a comment there.
  • No-where in the expanded 'criticism' section is there any mention of where the criticism comes from. Note also the discussion whether there should be a criticism section at all, or whether notes on international relations ought to be part of the history chapter or at Left Party (Sweden)/temp.
  • Please read the text you use as a reference. There is not a single mention of Juche in Werner's letter.
Indeed, juche is mentioned by another vpk riksdagsman: Jag har hört talas om Juche men inte riktigt förstått dess innebörd. Nu förstår jag vilken betydelse som denna idé haft och har för landet.--Constanz - Talk 19:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • " Curiously,..." is a highly insinuative wording. Moreover, its wording itself is hilarious. Should Werner be blamed for not having anticipated that 19 years later (!) there would be speculations on whether DPRK was having a nuclear weapons programme or not? The position that US should withdraw their nuclear warheads from South Korea was hardly an extreme point of view in the 1980s.
  • In general I prefer giving prominence to general historical developments, rather that anecdotes. VPK had functioning relations with WPK, and exchanges of written communications is hardly something odd.

--Soman 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Close down the Left Party!'

Since the article [27] is again used as a source, it should perhaps be in order to share some details of this article. It contains no sources, just a link to the TV-program Uppdrag Granskning.

  • "Partiordförande Ohly vet att de höga regressiva energiskatterna drabbar hårt de lågavlönade och inte minst industriarbetarna, som en gång i tiden var en viktig målgrupp för partiet. Med allt billigare energi förbättrades ständigt produktiviteten och arbetsmiljön för industriarbetarna. Maskiner ersatte muskelkraften och tunga arbetsmoment. Men genom ständigt ökade energipriser minskas antalet industrijobb och för de återstående industriarbetena blir löneutrymmet allt mindre. Den gröna skatteväxlingen syftar till att påskynda avindustrialiseringen av Sverige och genomföra den gröna kulturrevolutionen, det ”oundvikliga paradigmskiftet” med stort P, dvs. att industriell verksamhet avvecklas utan att ersattas av nya produktiva arbeten. Detta är idag också den rödgröna regeringspolitiken.", in essence the party strives to 'de-industrialize' Sweden.
  • "De röda radikalfeministernas hatobjekt (Mmm) är att jämföra med nazisternas judehat (eller Karl Marx judiska egoistiska schackrare) och kommunisternas klassfiende, den fete borgaren (utsugaren) - "borgasin, det är feta svin, kaviar å champagne.”" Compares feminism with anti-semtism.
  • "Med Schyman och radikalfeminismen har inte endast manshatet institutionaliserats genom talet om att svenska män är ”talibaner” utan även själva familjeinstitutionen ska nu avvecklas. Med Schymans slagord ”död åt familjen” ska en kärninstitution för det av alla kommunister förhatliga borgerliga samhället undergrävas. Med att familjeinstitutionen avskaffas ökar könssegregeringen, vilket är viktigt radikalfeministiskt mål. Istället för Berlinmuren ska nu en könsmur resas. Tanken är att när familjen dör ut då försvinner även möjligheterna för männen att utöva våld mot kvinnan innanför hemmets väggar." Communist hate the institution of the family, seeks to abolish it. The passage ends in the conclusion 'Instead of a Berlin Wall a gender wall shall be erected. The idea is that when the family dies of then the possiblities for men to excercise violence against women in the home disappears'.
  • "Glöm inte att en vänsterpartists moral alltid är underställd klasskampen och ”nyttiga idioter” är förutsättningen för deras politiska inflytande i svensk politik år 2004." translated "Do not forget that a Left Partyist's moral always in subordninated to the class struggle [notably, earlier in the text its claimed that the party is in the hands of eco-fundamentalists, seeking to abolish industrial labour] and that "useful idiots" are the precondition for their political influence in Swedish politics in the year 2004."
  • "Det är hög tid att alla de som röstar på partiet och som kallar sig för demokrater att sluta rösta på lögnens parti. (I riksdagsvalet år 2002 fick partiet hela 444.854 röster eller 8,3 procent.) Femtio år efter Stalins död och femton år efter Berlinmurens fall är det dags att lägga ned vänsterpartiet. Det är inte Barsebäck som ska avvecklas år 2005 utan vänsterpartiet!" Its high time that all those who vote for the party and call themselves democrats stop voting for the party of lies. ... 5o years after Stalin's death and 15 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall its high time to close down the Left Party..."

--Soman 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits

Some comments on Constanz's latest edits:

  • I would appreciate if Constanz could leave a comment concerning my enquiries over whether an unsigned, non-sourced web-article titled 'Close down the Left Party!' should be used as a source for any wikipedia article.
  • I object to the wording 'party's and its predecessors'. (v) is the same party as SSV, SKP and VPK. The 'predecessor' of (v) is the Social Democratic Party.
OK, then reword this sentence, rather than just reverting.--Constanz - Talk 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I still prefer general historical outlines rather than anecdotes. VPK and WPK had fraternal relations, and birthday communications between party leaders are hardly groundbreaking.
V's history is the history of Swedish branch of WCM. That's what these factually correct notions should underline. I regard Soman's everlasting reductions of the criticism to 'anecdotes' as a form of whitewashing.-Constanz - Talk 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I question 'In 1990 VPK changed its name to Vänsterpartiet ((v), Left Party) and officially ceased to be a communist party.' Does Constanz question whether (v) is still a communist party? If so, can this argument be sources or is it original research--Soman 21:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, some years ago V chairman would call himself a communist; he had to abandon it by pressure from public (probably within v itself). Broadleft.orf emphasises that v is socialist and EX-Communist.--Constanz - Talk 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
1. What is the definition of a communist party? Is it a political party in which there are communists? Or is an organization built along Bolshevik lines, with a vanguardist outlook, democratic centralism and a cadre policy?
2. The notion of 'branches of WCM' is incorrect. The WCM was and is an informal political community, without any governing body. Thus it did not have 'branches'. Rather one should speak about 'referents'.
3. I still prefer general history over anecdotes. I have proposed writing on the international relations of the party at Left Party (Sweden)/temp. I prefer writing on the development of the international relations of the party and their political context, rather than a biased-selection written communications register.

--Soman 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1.Please stop 'reducing (v)'s past mistakes regarding relationship with totalitarian communist regimes and tyrants like so-called Juches to 'anecdotes'. --Constanz - Talk 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
2.You question the reliability of source titled Close down the (v)!. But which sentences written by the authors of the article have I cited? I've used it as a source for primary sources inaccessible otherwise. Do you claim that the authors of the critical article fabricated those (V) leaders' disgusting praisals of one of the worst tyrannies of the world? --Constanz - Talk 09:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I also think that __Vänsterpartiet's political opponents have also used the party's and its predecessors' statements praising totalitarian communist regimes (including that of North Korea) as basis for criticism__ in the article is a concession by critical contributors to those who are committed to defending (v)'s appaling history. Some compromises by Soman&co are thus more also welcome!--Constanz - Talk 09:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There are two problems with the 'Close down the Left Party!' article. a) it is unsigned and unsourced, making it impossible for other editors to verify whether from were the quotes are taken and whether they are correct. I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an anonymous webmagazine claiming that the Left Party is in the clutches of ecofundamentalists seeking to dismantle industrial production. b) The linked article is just a random collection of rants and outright lies. Presenting the link at from the article compromises the credibility and integrity of wikipedia as a encyclopedia.
The linked article is used by Constanz in the passage on the birthday letter to Kim-Il Sung. --Soman 12:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please talk frankly and clearly, Soman

1.I ask you again: Do you claim that the article is not reliable, as far as quotations from Vänsterpartiet leaders' statements are concerned? Do you insist that these citations found there are fabrications by V-opponents?--Constanz - Talk 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

2.And you still haven't answered to my complains on your wording that reduces V's past praisal of communist dictatorships and relationships with these bloody tyrannies to 'anecdotes'.--Constanz - Talk 14:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I judge that particular article as not reliable. I don't know from were they take the text (since the author doesn't specify any sources). I'm by no means questioning whether any letter was sent to Kim Il-Sung on this occasion, but I prefer not to speculate over its content.
2. I repeat my stance; I do not in any way oppose mentioning the international relations of the party in the article. You might see that I clearly stated the relations with WPK at Left Party (Sweden)/temp. However, I prefer a description that puts the international contacts into its political context, which function they filled and how they developed. The relation VPK-WPK was, for example, quite different from that of VPK-CPSU. Moreover, a description of the international relations of the party needs to provide a description of the entire international network of the party, not just picking out the juiciest pieces. --Soman 15:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Your current version still has the anecdotical story of 'anecdotes'. I object to it.--Constanz - Talk 07:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 ? --Soman 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VVV

To describe VVV as a splinter-group of (v) is completly erroneous. VVV was started as a fraction within (v), but at an early stage declared itself as a non-party forum organizing people belonging to various political parties. There was never any definitive break between the vvv-ers and (v), some vvv-members left (v) but others (notably Johan Lönnroth) didn't. Thus vvv does not fit in the list of splits. --Soman 13:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

However, which is important, is that communists and democratical centralists within (v) used VVV as one of many arguments for mobbing out opponents against their own stance (hard to define by my POV, but more influenced by own aggressivity than any clear politics), under the name of fraction forming. These mobbers, mostly from Left Youth, now constitute the founding group behind Ohly. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Just saw that it says "refers to atleast THREE parrties, BOTH of which where once communist", something like that. Just thought I'd bring it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.67.24 (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)