Talk:Communist Party of Australia
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Picture in the wrong Communist Party article.
The picture showing members of the Communist Party of Australia was taken in 2007. But these are members of the new Communist Party. This article is about the old CPA. The picture taken in May 2007 should be in the article about the new CPA. --126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- This article is for the Communist Party, new and old, in Australia. Image is relevant. Timeshift (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added an intro and put what was acting as an intro into the history where it belongs.
I have changed the following comment:
- Against these achievements must be set the party's long history as an apologist for Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union. It was revulsion against this which led most of the party's best members to leave sooner or later.
1. Because it isn't neutral.
2. Because it is counterfactual.
- (a) Stalin was condemned in 1956.
- (b) The members didn't suddenly discover the party's 'long history' and leave.
I hope these edits are considered reasonable.--Jack Upland 01:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no problems with the edits you have made, and it is good to see someone taking an intelligent interest in this article, unlike the previous idiots whose unhelpful propaganda I have now archived. I must however disagree with your comment that "members didn't suddenly discover the party's 'long history' and leave." In fact that's exactly what happened for many members. The Khrushchev Secret Speech gave many members "permission" for the first time to examine the history of both the USSR and the CPA, and many did indeed resign as a result, or were expelled for demanding that the party debate the issues arising from the Speech. Adam 02:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, a lot of members left in 1956, but that doesn't fit the original statement.--Jack Upland 03:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I am willig to concede that the original sentence wasn't very NPOV, which was I didn't object to you removing it. It is however perfectly true, which is a different matter. Adam 06:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of labouring the point, the offending statement wasn't 'perfectly true' because:
- It implied that it was only Stalin that members objected to, rather than many issues with the Soviet Union. For example, many people left in 1956 over the Hungary Invasion, which happened after Stalin's death. Members left continuously up till the last gasp.
- It said that members were revolted by the party's role as an 'apologist', whereas surely Soviet misdeeds themselves were more significant.
- It implied that the 'party's long history' was something that members discovered (with revulsion) - but there's no such thing as a secret apologist.
- It then contradicted itself by saying 'sooner or later' i.e. not in 1956 or only in the Stalin era.--Jack Upland 02:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The comments at the end of the article violate the Wikipedia policies on NPOV and verifiability. In particular:
"But the party never succeeded in persuading many people that Communism was the answer to these problems." - This statement implies that the CPA was trying to persuade people that Communism was the answer to issues of civil rights, etc. I doubt that this is the case, and it is not supported by any source that I know of.
"Against these achievements must be set the party's long history as an apologist for the Soviet Union." - The word "apologist" is highly pejorative, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. For example, the article on the Liberal Party does not describe them as an apologist for the United States. In addition, the CPA appears to have been critical of the Soviet Union starting in 1968 (23 years before its dissolution). It would be reasonable to state that the CPA long supported the Soviet Union, but this would be misleading without mentioning that the party was later critical of the Soviet Union.
"Disenchantment with the Soviet Union led most of the party's members to leave over time." - There were many factors leading to declining membership, and some people even left due to the CPA's criticism of the Soviet Union. Although it is likely that disenchantment with the Soviet Union was the primary cause, this statement should be more specific and supported by a source.
Giving positive and negative POV is different to NPOV. The article should present facts without passing moral judgement. On its own, listing the issues that the CPA campaigned on is not POV, because it does not pass moral judgement on whether these were good or bad (although the wording does tend to present these campaigns as positive). However, using the wording "Against these achievements must be set" turns the paragraph into an argument on the merits of the CPA, with the campaigns presented as something positive and support for the Soviet Union presented as something negative. If this material is included, it should be given in a separate paragraph and give a factual account of the CPA's history of support and criticism of the Soviet Union. --rinlojm 01:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I wrote this article three years ago, early in my career at Wikipedia. Were I writing it now, I would write it rather differently and provide more citations and fewer unsupported comments than this version contains. I agree that the last paragraph has problems of verifiability. It's a pity that Volume II of Macintyre's History isn't out yet. I don't regard Davidson as very reliable, but I don't have other sources for the period to hand, although I read a lot of CPA materials when I was researching my thesis. I might have another go at this article when I get time. Adam 02:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you have any objection to the following wording? "But the party never succeeded in garnering significant support for Communism. The party supported the Soviet Union for many years (although it became critical of the Soviet Union from the late 1960s). Disenchantment with the Soviet Union was a leading cause of the loss of membership." It isn't perfect, but I think it would do for the moment. rinlojm 06:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Could we add a media section in which on an episode of 'Sliders' in an alternate history where Australia was split into a North and South with the Communist party having control over the north?
The IWW and the Communist Party-- something's either wrong or missing here
From its annual convention in 1908, the Industrial Workers of the World were constitutionally prohibited from joining in an alliance with any political party. The 1908 IWW Constitution states,
Political Parties and Discipline. "Whereas, The primary object of the Industrial Workers of the World is to unite the workers on the industrial battlefield; and
"Whereas, Organization, in any sense, implies discipline through the subordination of parts to the whole, and of the individual member to the body of which he is a part; therefore be it
"Resolved, That to the end of promoting industrial unity and of securing necessary discipline within the organization, the I. W. W. refuses all alliances, direct or indirect, with existing political parties or anti-political sects, and disclaims responsibility for any individual opinion or act which may be at variance with the purposes herein expressed." (emphasis added)
This language has never been absent from the IWW constitution since 1908. So either the history of the IWW's role recorded here is somehow erroneous, or perhaps the Australian IWW (possibly because they had been declared illegal) considered that there was some special circumstance that would make it permissible for them to violate this clause. Please be aware that there was a major dispute with the Socialist Labor Party that continued from 1908 at least through 1915, and the SLP went so far as to set up a rival IWW. That memory would have been very fresh, even in Australia, i expect.
I don't know the history of the Australian IWW very well. I don't know, for example, if they somehow considered themselves autonomous, and therefore not bound by the constitution. (Or did they have a constitution of their own? I've never heard of that...) It would be great to have this article reflect, even briefly, the IWW's true historical role in this regard. thanks, Richard Myers 22:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)