Talk:Communist Party of the Russian Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

invoked Russian patriotism in addition to communism[edit]

Wouldn't this mean that KPRF is the national socialist (or national communist) party of Russia?--85.49.234.93 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well nationalism was always a part of the stalinist parties. Soviet nationalism was used by Stalin to win world war 2, he replaced the internationale as anthem of the USSR, with the currend Russian Anthem which is quite nationalist. All stalinist parties turn to nationalism to keep there power, the chinese CCP and the vietnamese CPV are today nationalist parties, with a great capitalist partyprogram. --UDSS (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

National Communist label can be used.--Constanz - Talk 15:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
National Communist label can not be used. There is apparent difference between patriotism and nationalism: patriotism may be combined with internationalism, as it was during USSR unification in 1922.Nut1917 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
KPRF is hardly alone as for a CP to invoke nationalist discourse. National Communist, or National Bolshevism, is however something rather different. --Soman 16:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
lol National Communists are insignificant minority between russian leftists. As for National Bolsheviks, thay do not determine themselves as communists at all!Nut1917 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Acts by KPRF members speak for themselves (i'm not going to list their anti-semitic acts here; note that party leadership defended Makashov's notorious anti-semitism in 1998)--Constanz - Talk 16:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
No they did not.
Today is the year of 2009, nobody of CPRF politicians now take the liberty to say the sameNut1917 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a part about antisemitsm because while I agree that it is an important issue in many cases, the case of CPRF is not one of them. Presenting the view of that general as if he is the spokeman for the entire party is a not a honest thing. CPRF is not an antisemitic party, c'mon, I also know Jews who vote for this party. Also if you want to talk about Zyuganov supposedly antisemitic statements, you should do it in the article on him and not here. It is like if we say that Solidarnosc is an antisemitic organization because of the fact that many Solidarnosc members, including Lech Walesa, have said antisemitic statements.

Added on 8/6/07 a little start to Ideology section on CPRF, after all, it is a political party, there should be some interesting notes about what their politics are. I thought the stance on religion was interesting for how it differs from the stereotypical/prototypical/historical stand on religion by communist/socialist groups and in the history of the USSR.- Anonamess

Can someone expand the Ideology section? There is no mention in the article of what this party is trying to achieve. For instance, do they want to create a communist state (like the former USSR) or do they want to achieve their ideals within a democratic system (like currently in Moldova)? Vlaflipje1982 18:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried, by adding that they where supporting the law against "homosexual propaganda". I don´t got any link right now, but as the Duma almost ununamous voted yes I am quite sure that the second biggest party supported the law. It is quite spectacular that a far-left party did this. Especially as USSR was the first nation to make homosexuality legal, even if Stalin went in the wrong direction in that case... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Växelhäxan (talkcontribs) 14:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A stalinist party[edit]

Celebrating the birthday of Stalin ? and using Russian nationalism beside Marxism Leninism ? I know enough to say that this party is not communist or socialist. Nationalism is not compatible with communism, and by celebrating Stalin’s birthday they are Stalinist.

A shame that the Russians have no democratic socialist / communist party. The KPRF is Stalinist nationalist, the Party of Russian Social Democrats is pro capitalist, and the Liberal Democratic Party is a imperialist party. Are there no more real socialists, or are all those communist Russians Stalinists ? --UDSS (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"and by celebrating Stalin’s birthday they are Stalinist"

Uhhh, no... celebrating Stalin's birthday does not make them Stalinist, following Stalinism makes a party Stalinist? Stalin was the head of the Soviet communist party for around 30 years, he made major contributions to Communism in Russia, of course they are going to celebrate his birthday. HollyHuntaway (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

if you really think that Stalin's version of communism was not Russian nationalist, there's a very good Wikipedia article on Stalin which will probably clarify things. DGG (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"if you really think that Stalin's version of communism was not Russian nationalist" - ... What!? When did I say this??? 09:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HollyHuntaway (talkcontribs)
Yes, by celebrating Stalin's birthday they are stalinists. All communists who think that Stalin was a good communist are stalinists. Stalinism is no Communism, stalinism is like fascism a undemocratic force that is evil. Stalin was a traitor, a social fascist, and the Soviet: Adolf Hitler. If you believe that Stalin was good then you are a stalinist, and stalinism is not marxism. --UDSS (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Calling Stalin a social fascist is a bit of a historical irony, don't you think? --Soman (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
"Stalin was a traitor" - In what way? HollyHuntaway (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Because "social fascism" is the term Stalin used to refer to social democrats, and his justification for demanding that Communist parties not join in coalitions with them (a foolish policy which was quickly reversed after the failure of the German Communists to work with the German SDP lead to an incredible amount of political instability which the Nazi's were able to use to justify their coup). A bit odd, but it makes sense in terms of Communist rhetoric, where any party to the right of the Communists was derided as "fascist", even if it wasn't particularly authoritarian. However, western observers, noting the totalitarian similarities between Stalinism and Fascism/Nazism, often referred to Stalin's regime as "red fascism". When examining historical politics, you often find extraordinarily contradictory use of ideological labels, depending on the circumstances and hyperbole in place at the time. To compare with another oft-abused label, in the China of the 1980's people who were in favor of freer markets and democratic reforms were positively identified as "liberals", and they faced off against hard-line Maoist "conservatives". In complete and total contrast, liberalism is used as a negative slur for the left in US politics, often being equated to Marxism (and, more recently, fascism as well, because you can apparently never have enough hyperbole). As a last example, in France liberalism is a derisive slur as well, but it's used by the left and far-right to attack market-oriented conservatives and centrists.71.12.226.62 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Stalin used Marxism to create his own personal empire. In some way he was more evil than Adolf Hitler. Hitler and Stalin were both of the evil kind, both dictators who loved to abuse socialism for their own evil purposes. Stalin was a traitor because communism is not about forced labor, a single party state, a great leader who is god by state propaganda. Communism is a system of a stateless and classless society, Stalin never wanted that, he was most afraid of the people himself. Like many dictators he feared a workers revolution, so he killed almost all old Bolsheviks. The blame on Stalin tyranny lies not only by Stalin, but also to all those Communists ( Stalinists ) who followed him, not only in the USSR but around the glob. --UDSS (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The Soviet Union under Lenin and during Stalin's early years was highly internationalist and actively discouraged nationalism. It reflected the radically anti-nationalist politics of 19th century socialism, before the split between Communists and Socialists. The Bolshevik platform actually called for the abolition of passports, and Trotsky's original plan for running the foreign affairs ministry was simply to issue a few proclamations of solidarity with the international workers movement and shut it down. Almost no one would propose similar policies today. However, as time went by, and workers revolutions everywhere besides Russia failed, the SU became integrated into the reality of the international system in which they existed. They still theoretically, though, for a long time. But during WWII, Stalin found that he needed to exploit nationalism better mobilize the people to fight the Nazi's. During this time, the Soviets were huge nationalistic flag wavers, and abandoned most of their earlier internationalists pretenses. For instance, the "Red army" was renamed "the Soviet army", and the Soviet Union dropped L'Internationale (anthem of the international socialist movement) for a nationalistic Soviet anthem. Later Soviet leaders tried to back away from this, but they never returned to the radical pretensions of the early revolution. And in modern times, the socialist movement seems to have largely lost that naive internationalism associated with the early socialist movement. This is probably in part because nationalism has lost a large part of it's negative association with the rise of ethnic nationalism in the third world. Far left parties in these areas can be some of the biggest nationalist out there. Also, the lower class is often quite suspicious of foreigners, and socialist parties have often had to resort to anti-immigrant or nationalist rhetoric in order to compete with the far right. Although it's justified on it's face as a method of protecting the workers, the people who vote for such policies often simply hide their underlying racism. Anyway, although the SU broke from early Socialist and Communist internationalism, I don't really think it's wikipedia's place to be the police of ideological purity. The Soviets still thought of themselves as carrying on the ideology of their founders. Your opinion that they corrupted the ideology is not irrational, but the Communists who honestly believed that they were carrying on the flag of Lenin were not insane either. And it's not wikipedias place to take an opinion on the subject.71.12.226.62 (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

IMO using Western classifications to fit the Western perspectives won't produce an accurate result. "Stalinism" may be significant to those who associate Stalin with just the bad things he did, but that relies on the premise that if one likes Stalin then they also approve of the bad things he did and also that one's approval of Stalin is some sort of characteristic, which it is obviously not. 118.90.88.214 (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL this is not a public forum, keep your NPOV viewpoints to yourself, or join and talk about this on a public forum. 24.80.236.14 (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Crisis in Ideology Section[edit]

Off to a decent start, someone added a an extended medley of unsourced editorial type text. It either should be linked to sources and reworded or deleted, since I have no time for the former, I have done the later. Hopefully someone will intervene and replace it with more appropriate material, thanks, Samboring

Categories[edit]

The Category:Communist parties was divided into the following regions:

  • Europe
  • Asia
  • Middle East
  • Africa
  • Former Soviet Union
  • Americas
  • Oceania

Two of these categories, FSU and Middle East, covers two continents. This division might not be perfect, but changes should be brought up at the category talk or in a WP:CFD, rather than in this article. --Soman (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The CPRF is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and in the United European Left group in the Assembly. It is clearly a European Party. --90.242.30.244 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that Russia is a European country. However, the change cannot just be implemented in this article. The discussion needs to be brought up at Category talk:Communist parties or a CFD. --Soman (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Platform?[edit]

What are the party's actual platforms? --Jammoe (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

http://kprf.ru/party/program/ --Soman (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Prove nationism to this parties or you break Wikipedia:NPOV[edit]

Prove nationism to this parties or you break Wikipedia:NPOV http://kprf.ru/party/program/ Gnomsovet (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a number of sources. On the other hand, “creative development of Marxism-Leninism″ is simply ridiculously propagandistic thing to have in the infobox. Honestly speaking, I consider removing from my watchlist those articles (on Russian parties) that I've not started myself. It's just waste of time trying to argue with people who appear to be party militants in real life. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalin[edit]

On an interview on RT, the party chief said that the party did NOT uphold Stalin, and that the question was resolved at the 1956 20th Congress. --Gary123 (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case[edit]

I'll remove the link from reform-communism to Revisionism (Marxism), because Luxemburgism may as well be referred to, and that is not a "revisionism" according to the letter of the definition, just a more democratic model of classical Marxism. BTW if "accusing" someone of "revisionism", why not just say right out: "social democracy"? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

Can someone set up a redirect, I dont know how - KPRF should redirect here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.166.8 (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fascistoid far-left[edit]

Stalin had fascistoid elements and he's considered Far-Left, same with Pol Pot and Mao. Why not this party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.134.33.224 (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In history, especially with respect to "Communist" regimes, we've seen the use of far-left labels to invoke moral support for such ideals, thereby excusing the true totalitarian, fascistoid (and consequently, anti-Marxist) nature of these regimes. Wikipedia should be concerned with correctly labeling political parties' true ideological nature, not the superficial front they put on, if the consensus is that this superficiality exists.Father McKenzie (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

it must say russian natinoalism , nationalism is nothing without the country[edit]

it must say russian natinoalism , nationalism is nothing without the country , you cant for example say a party in norway has its ideology as simply nationalism it must say norweigian nationalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.168.136 (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Zhuganov personally determine party policy?[edit]

i.e. that's apparently the only support for "(such as abandoning state atheism)". 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The article more or less captures the fact, but there ought to be someway to transform "it considers itself the successor of the CPSU" to the actual fact which is that after the collapse of the Stalinist state, the party was called on historically, to return to its pre-Stalinist roots, instead it became a recidivist embarassment, a continuing indictment of the role of the Russian people in discrediting socialism. Obviously that's way over the top, but something more than "it considers itself" should be expressible in a neutral factual way. Lycurgus (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Gennady Zyuganov and his anti-Putin policy[edit]

Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party of Russian Federation,is a harsh critic of Putin ,but his recipes for Russia’s future are true to his Soviet roots. He is on record as hoping to renationalise all major industries and he believes the USSR was “the most humane state in human history”. [1]In November 2001,In an open letter to Putin ahead of the summit between the US and Russian presidents in the United States, Zyuganov said that Russia was betraying its national interests."It is blindly following US policy which has been characterized recentlyby open aggression" .Zyuganov criticized Putin for his decision last month to close a Cuban listening post that eavesdropped on US communications and a key naval base in Vietnam, as well as Russian support for Washington using basesin former Soviet Uzbekistan and Tajikistan for its Afghan strikes."Russia's national state and national interests may be betrayed" at the upcoming summit between Putin and US President George W. Bush, Zyuganov warned.[2]On November 29, 2008, Gennady Zyuganov, in his speech before the 13th Party Congress made these remarks about the state that Russia under Putin was in: "Objectively, Russia’s position remains complicated, not to say dismal. The population is dying out. Thanks to the “heroic efforts” of the Yeltsinites the country has lost 5 out of the 22 million square kilometers of its historical territory. Russia has lost half of its production capacity and has yet to reach the 1990 level of output. Our country is facing three mortal dangers: de-industrialization, de-population and mental debilitation. The ruling group has neither notable successes to boast of, nor a clear plan of action. All its activities are geared to a single goal: to stay in power at all costs. Until recently it has been able to keep in power due to the “windfall” high world prices for energy. Its social support rests on the notorious “vertical power structure” which is another way of saying intimidation and blackmail of the broad social strata and the handouts that power chips off the oil and gas pie and throws out to the population in crumbs, especially on the eve of elections.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NVRENGUANNANREN (talkcontribs) 12:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).