Talk:Communist Party of the Soviet Union
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 To be or not to be (Communist) =
- 3 Bolsheviks banned other parties.
- 4 Succession to Lenin
- 5 Formation of the Politburo
- 6 Successor parties
- 7 Leading role of the CPSU???
- 8 Separate articles
- 9 Soviet Union Coat of Arms?
- 10 Removal of improperly placed project tag
- 11 far left?
- 12 VKP(b)
- 13 Political position
- 14 Ukrainian Bolsheviks
- 15 Protected
- 16 Russian Communist Party
- 17 File:Pin of the Flag of CPSU.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
- 18 Disproportionate content
- 19 rfc: olny legal party?
- 20 Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014
- 21 Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014
- 22 Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2015
- 23 Reasons for Demise section
- 24 Successor parties
- the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a new party, containing the largest fraction of the CPSU members who regretted the banning of the CPSU, or
- the ban on CPSU was later lifted.
For better undersanding what communist party was within the Soviet society IMO the section, sketched below, is needed. Does anyone dare to finish?
To be or not to be (Communist) =
Answers to this ethernal question split the history of the Soviet Union into three periods.
In during the Stalin's rule being a communist was sitting on the razor blade. On one hand you had power and perks, on the other hand, you were in the limelight of Kremlin's stars that shone bright over your potential road to Siberia.
In the post-Stalin's times, if you were not party member, you could not hold any position of authority. If you were not a Komsomol member, you could not study in the University. May be the word "communist" still sounded threatening for the West, in the Soviet Union itself it had degenerated to a synonym for nomenklatura.
Mikkalai 04:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Bolsheviks banned other parties.
Your outline states that the Bolsheviks outlawed the Mensheviks and other political parties. When? I can find no Soviet law dating from the Lenin period which did any such thing.
- Maybe they got rid of the evidence? No, wait, that's just stupid. The CPSU getting rid of evidence? That's just crazy. VolatileChemical 11:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Succession to Lenin
We need to develop the section on the struggle between Stalin and Trotksy (as well as Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev) after the death of Lenin and how Stalin won. AndyL 00:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I'd say first of all we need to define the relatioship between the history of the CPSU and that of the USSR. Obviously, their overlap is huge, but probably there is a way to minimize duplications, which present difficulties for the consistency of the subsequent edits. Mikkalai 01:10, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of focussing on party organisation, internal party disputes and manouvers (particularly over succession), internal party regime, ideological shifts etc rather than on events such as WWII, foreign policy etc except where they have an effect on the party itself. Anyway, I've expanded the parts on the succession struggles of the 20s, and 50s as well as the deposing of Khrushchev. I've also created a section on membership. What else needs to be done. Does anyone have more knowledge on the Tenth Party Congress and internal party life and debate while Lenin was still alive?AndyL
Formation of the Politburo
In the article Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee it says the following:
"Lenin set up the Politburo in 1917 to direct the Revolution, and following the Eighth Party Congress in 1919 it became and remained the true centre of political power in the Soviet Union. Originally, the Politburo consisted of 5 members: Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Joseph Stalin, Lev Kamenev and Nikolai Krestinsky."
Whereas here it says the Politburo was set up in 1919.
If I remember right (and I can check), the Politburo was set up in 1917, but was dissolved after the revolution, and then reinstated at the 10th party congress in 1919.
A small difference, but accuracy is important!
CPRF is the de facto successor to the CPSU, as it is based in the Russian mainland rather than other former SSRs. As far as I know, there is only one other successor party other than CPRF to hold this distinction. It should be in the disambiguation header as many people will come here wanting to know which party, exactly, is descended from the CPSU. And for all intents and purposes this is the CPRF. metaspheres 05:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Soviet Union was made up of 15 SSRs. CPRF can be seen as the political continuation of the CPSU organisation in Russia, but the linkage is much less direct than say the EDTP in Estonia. --Soman 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Leading role of the CPSU???
There really should be some mention of the party-state relationship's inconsistent history SOMEWHERE. Awhile back, I read this:
"Informed by newly published documents from the archives of the former Soviet Union as well as recent Russian literature based on them, Lukacs presents a very thoughtful and convincing analysis of Stalin's increasing emphasis before the war on the role of the state OVER that of the Communist Party."
Also consider the members of Sovnarkom during Lenin's chairmanship (Kamenev as the deputy, Trotsky for War, Chicherin for Trotsky's old Foreign Affairs, Stalin for Nationalities, Rykov for the pre-Stalin NKVD/Interior, Lunacharsky for Enlightening/Education, etc.). Darth Sidious 00:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Questions have emerged on several articles regarding the delimitation of article material on parties that merged into and/or emerged out of the CPSU. The issue is not uncomplicated as names of say Communist Party of Estonia was continued to be used after its merger into CPSU.
My suggestion is that articles dealing with CPSU entities and non-CPSU entities are kept separate. There should be separate sub-article on the history of regional entities of History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
So we would have Communist Party of Estonia dealing with the 1920-1940 party and a separate History of the Communist Party of Estonia 1940-1990 article, as a subarticle to History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. My intention is to split up the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union article into 6-7 separate chronological articles and create a navigation template for it. Links to the history articles of the regional entities could be included in such a template.
Any opinions? --Soman 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I second that. Many of the communist parties that emerged after the Soviet Union were completely reorganized in the early 1990s. For example, the Tajikistan Communist party was banned for a while and the leadership was completely different after the ban was lifted.--David Straub 13:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Subarticles for every republican party? Thats's 14 in the late period of Soviet history, and before the dissolution of KFSSR even 15. Too much in my opinion. CP of Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania were in fact the same organizations in May 1940 as in July, bet you offer to regard them separately. I would agree with separate articlies only for re-founded parties as the new CP of Ukraine. 126.96.36.199 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do not necessarily agree with the proposal. Some CPs, like the Communist Party of Latvia retained elements of a distinct institutional identity even after subordination to the CPSU, just as it had done previously as LSD (Sotsial-demokratiia Latyshskaia kraia, a territorial section of the RSDWP) in the period 1906–1919, or when the CPL leadership in exile in Moscow operated as the Latsektsiia of the Comintern, and therefore also arguably as a subordinate unit of the CP(b)SU... Nevertheless, the CPL in the postwar Latvian SSR marked its own anniversaries, such as the events in Latvia in 1905 and 1919, which had little to do with the history of the "mother party" in the RSFSR. To declare that the Estonian, Latvian, or Lithuanian CPs should be treated within the general history of the CPSU from 1940 is arbitrary (as pointed out in the comment above as well). To take things to their logical conclusion, any CP that aligned itself with the Comintern would need to be included as just a section of the CPSU until 1943, due to the way that the Comintern acted as a vehicle for the CPSU to exercise control over the other formally autonomous CPs (case in point: the reactions of the Comintern parties to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact). Otherwise, if the French, American, Italian, German etc. CPs can be treated separately from the CPSU, why should not the same be true for the Baltic CPs? It's a different situation, admittedly, for those republican CPSU client parties that never previously existed outside the borders of the USSR, such as the Uzbek or Kazakh CPs. — Zalktis 15:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- There was no any separate Communist parties in the Soviet Union, as long as Soviet Union existed. That was one CPSU party, with one Central Committee, one "ustav", and very rigid up-to-down discipline. Italian and French parties were significantly independent, although affected by the Soviet policies. US communist party was basically a front organization of the KGB. So, I do not see any reasons for creation separate articles like History of the Communist Party of Estonia 1940-1990. However any communist party that emerge after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the former Soviet republics deserves articles if it is notable.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Soviet Union Coat of Arms?
Why is the Coat of Arms of the Soviet Union the first image on the page? It has nothing to do with the CPSU, was never associated with CPSU emblems and is in general confusing to people familiar with the matter. It's akin to putting a leaf clover on the article about IRA. Outside of the use of the hammer and the sickle CPSU didn't make use of any other symbols. However, if you really want to put something to differentiate it from other communist parties I think one of their Lenin/Marx posters would do a much better job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonybsd (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well the USSR symbol was definitely used at CPSU events, e.g. the front of the podium at the CPSU congresses had the State Arms (not sure about the last one, but old Vremya clips on Youtube have other stuff...). 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Removal of improperly placed project tag
The insertion of the totalitarian project was was inappropriate here, given that political scientists do not consider the CPSU party totalitarian after the death of Stalin. Maglev Power (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- While the Nazi Party exhibited and typified the far-right, there exists serious doubts with the Communist Party. For example, how could a radically egalitarian party support such social stratification between party officials and the commoners? This seems more in line with far-right than anything else.--Drdak (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Nazis were far-left. Nazi = National Socialist German Workers' Party. All Communism, despite being far-left, ultimately becomes dominated/ruled by an egalitarian minority: China, Cuba, North Korea, USSR. Therefore, one of the defining characteristics of the far-left theology of communism is the autocracy or oligarchy. Granted, not in their initial philosophizing, but an inherent characteristic of the ultimate destination of such regimes. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
What does "VKP(b)" mean? It redirects here but is not explained, which is confusing. I noticed that the "VKP" is the General Confederation of Trade Unions. Who is like God? (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- It is the Latin script version Russian abbreviation of 'All Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)', one of the names used by the party. --Soman (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I should add to that that it is explained in the History section of the article. -- QUANTUM ZENO 13:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose that "position" in terms of left-right axis be removed from the infobox. Left/right-positions are not universal, they are always contextual. Was the CPSU a leftist or rightist force in Soviet society? Not an entirely easy question to respond to. Nevertheless, it was certainly not far left as it represented the mainstream political force in the country at the time. --Soman (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This article should immediately be safeguarded, it is a historial piece of information and should remain indefinitely protected — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXOGreat (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Russian Communist Party
Russian Communist Party currently redirects to this page, however, a searcher for that term could just as easily be looking for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. I propose either changing Russian Communist Party into a disambiguation page or changing it into a re-direct to Communist Party of the Russian Federation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Pin of the Flag of CPSU.png Nominated for speedy Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Pin of the Flag of CPSU.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
The content of this article is organized very disproportionately. The intro is mostly filled with the history of the party while the history is mostly filled with how the party was dismantled, with no section on ideology or other basic info. I ask other editors to help fix this and make the article more complete and appropriately proportionate. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
rfc: olny legal party?
|Sorry, but banned users are not allowed to contribute|
Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Done assuming you mean in the Pravda section Cannolis (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2015
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
The [List of leaders of the Soviet Union|party leader] was the head of government and held the office of either [General Secretary of the Communist Party of China|General Secretary], [Premier of the Soviet Union|Premier] or [List of heads of state of the Soviet Union|head of state], or some of the three offices concurrently—but never all three at the same time.
Please change [General Secretary of the Communist Party of China|General Secretary] to [General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union|General Secretary]. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Reasons for Demise section
It seems to me that the "Reasons for demise" section in this article is flawed. First, it looks at the demise of the Soviet Union and "Communism" as a whole, and not the demise of the Party itself, which is topic of the article. Second, the first half, "Western view", devotes a fair amount of space to one single analyst (Archie Brown) with no explanation of why this person's view stands for that of the West as a whole or is particularly notable. Then there is a very detailed section on the Chinese Communist Party's view, taking up more space than all other views put together, which seems to me to be undue weight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Bobfrombrockley: I agree. I wrote the section (and the majority of the current article), but out of boredom I stopped working on the article. I stopped working on the article midway through. The CPC's view of the CPSU collapse should not be removed or minimised (its extremely interesting to read about the CPC's views on the USSR's collapse and the collapse of communism in Europe more generally), but I agree more space should given to different Western points of views.. But that should be easy to fix. --TIAYN (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I inserted this edit. It was immediately reverted with the words "Simply wrong". It's not wrong though is it?
The successor parties of the CPSU in Russia were the short-lived Communist Party of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1990-91) and then the still extant Communist Party of the Russian Federation. Successor parties also exist in many of the former Soviet republics, such as the Communist Party of Ukraine.
@Bobfrombrockley: Yes it is. First the Communist Party of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was not a successor party, it was the republican branch of the CPSU in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the successor of the CPSU republican branch, the aforementioned Communist Party of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. However, none of these parties are successors to the unionwide, central CPSU. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is no more successor party than the Communist Party of Uzbekistan. --TIAYN (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- The issue of successor parties to CPSU is quite complex. CPRF is probably quite legit as the CPRSFSR successor party, but not the CPSU successor as such. In other cases there are some easy examples, such as KPU in Ukraine, but in cases like Latvia or Uzbekistan it is more complex. For the CPSU there are a number of different groups claiming to be the successor, the SKP-KPSS perhaps the most representative. --Soman (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)