Talk:List of communist parties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Socialism (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force.
 

split[edit]

I think we need to split these into official communist parties and those that are 'unoffical' such as the revolutionary communists etc. Of course what constitutes offical post 1991 is an interesting point.

We then need to think about what constitutes a communist party - is it anything with communist in its name? Some of the 57 varieties of leftist have communist in their name and some don't. Should there be a separate list of trotskyist parties? Should reformed communists like the Party of Democratic Socialism be in here?

As for Maoists, what I've said in the intro is that "parties on this list are mostly those that were aligned with either Moscow or Beijing during the Cold War and their offshoots". I think a seperate list for Trotskyist parties would make more sense given their number (there is a list of international Trotskyist movements already, that may be sufficient)AndyL 17:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Coalition Communists[edit]

Since the Progressive Party of the Working People in Cyprus has been added, which rules in coalition as well as the Moldovan Communists, who rule through their victory in Democratic elections, I thought it would be fair to add all Communist Parties in ruling coalition governments. Similarly, there are many countries whose ruling Party is described as Marxist/Communist on their Wikipedia pages but which are not listed here, namely SWAPO, PFDJ and ZANU-PF and CPP so I also thought it would be appropriate to add them. The coalition Communist Parties I have noticed have all been posted, they all are currently in the ruling coalition of these governments, as is the AKEL in Cyprus.

SWAPO, PFDJ, and ZANU-PF are not, and probably were never (the PFDJ may have been at one point), communist parties. The CPP (I assume you are referring to Ghana's Convention People's Party) also was not a communist party. All four groups used elements of Marxist thought and rhetoric, but this is not the same as Marxism-Leninism or communism. —Sesel 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan[edit]

Why are the communist parties not listed there from these areas, present or past? That-Vela-Fella 13:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

EX-Communist parties[edit]

What about the parties that were once Marxist-Leninist (MPLA, FRELIMO and ZANU-PF) but have since backed away from these ideologies in favour of others. Should they be included? Also is the Korean Worker's Party even officially "communist" any more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.32.173 (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mozambique[edit]

The current ruling party in Mozambique is Marxist-Leninist, it says on Mozambique's page. Should Mozambique be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.133.3 (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's already listed as it was M-L, under List_of_communist_parties#Formerly_ruling. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

in government?[edit]

I think a minimum criteria for being listed as being in government must be having members of the national cabinet. For example, PCV in Venezuela is part of the broader Chavista movement, but doesn't not have government presence at the moment. --Soman (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point. The Communist Party of Belarus also supports their country's president, but is not part of any kind of formal coalition government. The "Kurdistan" listed in this article is not a separate country, but a region of Iraq. Finally, the People's Progressive Party (Guyana) is not even a communist party, yet it is listed! Cmrdm (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
True on the above mentioned after looking into it myself. The PCV & the CPB are not directly involved in the governing aspect of the Venezuelan or Belrussian nations respectively (just supportive) and should be removed. The Kurdistan one is ok, as it is part of the Alliance that is within the government of Iraq. Also the PPP of Guyana should be removed as the reason said already. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 09:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I think if we are going to include regional governments, then that should be a separate list. There are several Indian provinces that could be included as well. Cmrdm (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The People's Progressive Party of Guyana includes Marxism-Leninism in their party programme. So, I would assume it would count as a Communist Party, at least de-facto, if not in reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.100.27 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The PPPG does not consider itself to be a communist party, which is why it does not belong on this list. Read this introduction from the party's website: About PPP/Civic. Cmrdm (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lower-case c or upper-case C?[edit]

A few facts: When spelled with a lower-case "c," the word "communism" has a broad meaning which includes anarchism, Marxism, and utopian socialism. When used with an upper-case "C," the word "Communism" specifically refers to parties with "Communist" in their name. The same goes for Socialism/socialism and Social-Democracy/social-democracy; lower case refers to the ideology, upper case refers to the name. Only a sectarian clown would declare that "Only the Juche-Hoxhaist 5th Internationalist Communist Parties can be truly considered Communist."

If Trotskyist parties (even ones that were/are "Communist" something) are not included, then this should be retitled "List of Stalinist Parties" or to appease the Stalinists, "List of Marxist-Leninist Parties."

To sum up: "Communism" does not refer to a particular trend of Marxism; when capitalized, it merely refers to parties which have "Communist" in their name. When uncapitalized, it refers to any political philosophy which advocates the establishment of a classless society - whether by revolutionary or any other means! If this list is "List of Communist Parties," then any party with Communist in the name should be on the list. If it is "List of communist parties," then even the Russian SR's and the early German SPD should be included because they advocated a classless society (communism) even if they completely failed to chart a way there. Ahuitzotl (talk) 06:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The notion of differentiation between upper-case and lower-case has been mentioned at Communism, but frankly the source ([1]) doesn't really back up that claim. As far as I can see there is no real difference in meaning between 'Communist' and 'communist', its just a stilistic marker. A communist party is not just any party with the word 'communist' in its name, the concept embodies a certain organizational profile (at least in rhetoric) of democratic centralism and the notion of being a vanguard party. --Soman (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the current wording already provides an excellent explanation, "Some Communist parties have names such as Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party, Workers' Party, etc. The parties on this list are mostly those that were aligned with either Moscow or Beijing during the Cold War and their offshoots. Groups originating in the Trotskyist tradition are not included in the listing.
Keep in mind that not all of these parties are Marxist-Leninist anyway, some are Eurocommunist and one is Juche. The Trotskyist parties have their own special list that is linked to at the top of the article. This helps to keep the list orderly, because there are more than 500 known Trotskyist groups on the planet currently. Cmrdm (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How is it that so many communist parties are allowed to exist? The communists and their ideology are responsible for hundreds of millions of murders worldwide. For balance, there should be an equal number of National Socialist parties, ruling and non-ruling, in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.61.238.40 (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Soman, communism is a lot older than Marxism, and Marxism is older than Leninism. There are reformist socialists who consider themselves Marxists and communists, but are firmly opposed to the Leninist conception of a "vanguard party." There are anarchists who consider themselves communists (because they advocate a classless society), yet are firmly opposed to both Marxism and Leninism. There are also many religious organizations (early Christianity for example) that advocate or have advocated some form of utopian communism. All Leninists are Marxists and all Marxists are communists but not all communists are Marxists and not all Marxists are Leninists. To confuse the three terms in such a philistine manner, as if you might reinvent the definitions of words according to your own prejudices, is atrocious.

Cmrdrm: if this list isn't ideologically homogeneous, why leave out some "Communist Parties?" Either it should include all parties with Communist in the name, or all parties that advocate a classless society (communism), even if some sections are simply a link to other lists. To pick and choose which "Communist Parties" are really Communist, and arbitrarily throw in a few communist parties without Communist in the name, is subjective, ridiculous, demonstrates confusion over the definition of the terms, and will serve to further confuse others (like our Nazi clown friend 166.61.238.40 here) instead of educating them. Ahuitzotl (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Error[edit]

There is an error about Brazilian Communist Party and PPS (Socialist People's Party). BCP didnt became SPP, some people of BCP left it and created SPP but Brazilian Communist Party still exists they only lose their number but they legacy is recognized by Electoral Justice.

Lobei (talk) 20:01, 21 Mar 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.13.93 (talk)

Information needing to be added[edit]

A political party described as a communist party includes those that advocate the application of the social principles of communism through a communist form of government. The name originates from the 1848 tract Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[1]

A communist party is, at least according to Leninist theory, the vanguard party of the working class, whether ruling or non-ruling, but when such a party is in power in a specific country, the party is said to be the highest authority of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin's theories on the role of a communist party were developed as the early 20th-century Russian social democracy divided into Bolshevik (meaning "majority") and Menshevik (meaning "minority") factions.

Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks, argued that a revolutionary party should be a well-knit vanguard party with a centralized political command and a strict cadre policy; the Menshevik faction, however, argued that the party should be a broad-based mass movement. The Bolshevik party, which eventually became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, took power in Russia after the October Revolution in 1917. With the creation of the Communist International, the Leninist concept of party building was copied by emerging communist parties worldwide.

There currently exist hundreds of communist parties throughout the world. Their success rates vary widely: some are growing; others are in decline. In three countries, Republic of Cuba; People's Republic of China; and Socialist Republic of Vietnam, communist parties retain dominance over the state. See the List of communist parties for details on the communist parties of today.

The Chinese Communist Party is the world's largest political party,[2] claiming nearly 78 million members[3] at the end of 2009 which constitutes about 5.6% of the total population of mainland China.

  1. ^ Harper, Douglas. "communism". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2008-08-27. 
  2. ^ The Communist Party of China
  3. ^ China's communist party members near 78 mln

Mass organizations[edit]

As the membership of a communist party was to be limited to active cadres, there was a need for networks of separate organizations to mobilize mass support for the party. Typically communist parties have built up various front organizations, whose membership is often open to non-communists. In many countries the single most important front organization of the communist parties has been its youth wing. During the time of the Communist International the youth leagues were explicit communist organizations, using the name 'Young Communist League'. Later the youth league concept was broadened in many countries, and names like 'Democratic Youth League' were adopted.

Other organizations often connected to communist parties includes trade unions, student, women's, peasant's and cultural organizations. Traditionally these mass organizations were politically subordinated to the political leadership of the party. However, in many contemporary cases mass organizations founded by communists have acquired a certain degree of independence. In some cases mass organizations have outlived the communist parties in question.

At the international level, the Communist International organized various international front organizations (linking national mass organizations with each other), such as the Young Communist International, Profintern, Krestintern, International Red Aid, Sportintern, etc.. These organizations were dissolved in the process of deconstruction of the Communist International. After the Second World War new international coordination bodies were created, such as the World Federation of Democratic Youth, International Union of Students, World Federation of Trade Unions, Women's International Democratic Federation and the World Peace Council.

Historically, in countries where Communist Parties were struggling to attain state power, the formation of wartime alliances with non-communist parties and wartime groups was enacted (such as the National Liberation Front of Albania). Upon attaining state power these Fronts were often transformed into nominal (and usually electoral) "National" or "Fatherland" Fronts in which non-communist parties and organizations were given token representation (a practice known as Blockpartei), the most popular examples of these being the National Front of East Germany (as a historical example) and the United Front of the People's Republic of China (as a modern-day example). Other times the formation of such Fronts were undertaken without the participation of other parties, such as the Socialist Alliance of Working People of Yugoslavia and the National Front of Afghanistan, though the purpose was the same: to promote the Communist Party line to generally non-communist audiences and to mobilize them to carry out tasks within the country under the aegis of the Front.

Naming[edit]

A uniform naming scheme for communist parties was adopted by the Communist International. All parties were required to use the name 'Communist Party of (name of country)'. Today, there are plenty of cases where the old sections of the Communist International have retained those names. In other cases names have been changed. Common causes for the shift in naming were either moves to avoid state repression[1] or as measures to indicate a broader political acceptance.

A typical example of the latter was the renamings of various East European communist parties after the Second World War, as staged 'mergers' of the local Social Democratic parties occurred.[2] New names in the post-war era included 'Socialist Party', 'Socialist Unity Party', 'Popular Party', 'Workers Party' and 'Party of Labour'.

The naming conventions of communist parties became more diverse as the international communist movement was fragmented due to the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960s. Those who sided with China and/or Albania in their criticism of the Soviet leadership, often added words like 'Revolutionary' or 'Marxist-Leninist' to distinguish themselves from the pro-Soviet parties.

  1. ^ One such example is the Swiss Party of Labour, which was founded in 1944 to substitute the illegalized Communist Party of Switzerland.
  2. ^ Such mergers occurred in East Germany (Socialist Unity Party of Germany), Hungary (Hungarian Working People's Party), Poland (Polish United Workers Party) and Romania (Romanian Workers Party).

Congolese Party of Labour[edit]

Why is not Congolese Party of Labour at the lists? It was a ruling marxist-leninist party in Republic of Congo until 1990, but today it is a socialist party working in opposition. --31.147.30.155 (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Congolese party of labour added to the List of formerly ruling parties. --Plamen (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The Congolese Party of Labour is not in the opposition, it is currently the ruling party and has been so since the Republic of the Congo Civil War in 1997. Charles Essie (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Trotskyist organizations[edit]

It says in the lead section that Trotskyist parties are not included in the listing, but why is that? Trotskyists are communists too, and they have communist parties so they should be included. Charles Essie (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the definition of a Communist Party is not just a party whose members are communists. There is a distinct meaning, in terms of historical legacy, political culture and organizational structure. The Trotskyists have other forms of political organizations, and thus place themselves outside the scope of the listing. --Soman (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
In that case this article should be renamed "List of communist organizations," because there is no excuse for the Trotskyists not to be included. Charles Essie (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Such a listing would be much less useful, and au contraire we should have more clear demarkation to have a listing representing the mainstream of the world communist movement. --Soman (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I think not all Trotskyist parties are communist parties,some difine itself as democratic socialist party such as almost branches of CWI,but,some should be listed are like Workers' Communist Party (Italy).南天星斗 (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a fair compromise. Charles Essie (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I really agree that Trotskyists should be included in this list. Te og kaker (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Left communist parties should also be on the list. Charles Essie (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Many Trotskyist organizations don't label "communist" to themselves. See List of Trotskyist organizations by country and List of Left communist organizations by country. AsharaDayne (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Trotskyist parties should be excluded because the list is long enough and there are many Trotskyist parties, to many to put on the same list as all other communist parties. I also don't think Juceist parties should be included because they aren't really Comunists. I don't think that Anarho-Communists and Left Communists should be excluded because neither of those probems are present with last two group. Groups such as the Guyanese People's Progressive Party that are oficialy communist but actually aren't should either be excluded or have some sort of citation showing their not really communist TURTLOS (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Movement of Popular Participation[edit]

Is Movement of Popular Participation in Uruguay belong to communist party? 南天星斗 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Chaotic list[edit]

I find this list somewhat chaotic. It does not seem to consist a logical system. Not every organization listed is actually a party (such as some "leagues" or "unions"), so a change of lemma might be advisable. Also it may be useful to add a sorting by ideological tendencies and international affiliations by inserting the information into a sortable table. --Partisan1917 20:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary for the time being, because the list is still incomplete now. 南天星斗 (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

CPs of The Baltic states[edit]

Does these parties still exist, include CP of Estonia, CP of Latvia and CP of Lithuania? 南天星斗 (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

They are illegal since August coup. In Latvia an ersatz organization named Socialist Party of Latvia exists with MPs and with an orthodox Marxist-Leninist ideology. As far as I know, no Communist party (I mean, not even one with a dozen members) exists in Lithuania or Estonia.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Workers' Party of Korea should still be considered Communist[edit]

DPRK's state ideology is not altogether a repudiation of Communism and does not differ much from Stalinist Russia and pre-1979 China in matters of policy. If anything, it can be considered a further evolution of the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist tradition. Each successive development in this line of quasi-religious ideologies saw the elevation of the newer prophet to greater heights, along with the increasing marginalization of his predecessors, where they were successively whittled down to ensure that nothing in Leninism contradicting Stalinism be allowed,and nothing in Stalinism contradicting Maoism be allowed, and so forth. During the cultural revolution it was said that the study of "Mao Zedong thought" should amount to 95% of the study of the Marxist Canon as a whole. Juche just raises its own quota to 100%.

To be sure, purist Trotskyist sects (and equally purist "Anti-Revisionist" cults) will refuse to accept that the WPK is Communist. But, if the issue of who is to be considered "Communist" were left to them, then they would exclude everybody but themselves. Political organizations are rightly categorized by what their ideology amounts to, rather than by self-identification (and in this case even judgment by self-identification is less than conclusive as the WPK has not explicitly declared itself non-communist). If we were to go solely by self-identification, then the DPRK would be "democratic" and a "republic" as well.

The efforts by the first-world radical left to disown North Korea, and even label it "right-wing" is cute- but quite dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.242.12 (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You are on the slippery slope. If every party that has evolved from communist idea or party is considered to be a communist party, then many social-democratic parties in post-socialist states would also be considered to be a communist parties (and only far-right folk considers them as such). It doesn't matter from what has party evolved, what kind of symbols does it use or what's its name (although, again, those things are apparently very important to right-leaning people). What matters is whether a party acts like a communist party (duck test), regardless of its past, colors, symbols and name.
If all those irrelevant things are ignored, WPK indeed seems to have more in common with far-right parties then with communist parties. --94.253.204.88 (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
″WPK indeed seems to have more in common with far-right parties then with communist parties″ No. North Korea is the sole remaining rigid centrally planned socialist economy. I know, there are people who like to point to Juche and nationalism as a 'proof' of the alleged far-right nature of the North Korean regime, however, this is still a minor facet, given that Khmer Rouge and Romania under Ceausescu were also highly nationalistic, while no-one considered them as far-right.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, one cannot deny that until the collapse of the Communist bloc, the USSR considered North Korea a socialist country and the WPK as one of the communist and workers parties of the world. It seems the party is recognized as such by other communist parties today as well: Workers'_Party_of_Korea#Ideology. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
WPK's political position is controversial at best. There are notable people, and some academics among them, such as Professor Brian Reynolds Myers, who consider WPK to occupy the far-right part of the political spectrum. As mentioned before, party's past, symbols and name (and even how are others calling it) doesn't matter when determining its political position. Only thing that matters is party's current practice, which in case of WPK is more reminiscent to what the far-right parties (would) do than anything else.
Also, centrally planed economy does not equal socialism, although planed economy (not necessarily centrally) is used by socialism to some degree, but it is understandable that this would all look the same to someone who uses the name "commies" for people with different opinions on that kind of topic.
But all of that doesn't really matter for the article, because it borders being original research. What matters is what reliable sources say and according to them, WPK is also being considered as far-right party by many of those who bothered to think about it. However, since this view doesn't have wide enough acceptance (yet), it would be the best to consider its political position to be a controversial issue rather than being well defined.
Therefore, WPK shouldn't be in the list of far-left parties or far-right parties, because there is currently no academic consensus where it belongs. --94.253.155.89 (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
One, two or three fringe authors do not invalidate the facts that 1) most noncommunists consider WPK as communist 2) most communists consider it as communist, as evident by articles such as Pyongyang Declaration and International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. It is a fringe group of authors that don't consider North Korea as socialist/communist at all. A minority within a minority so to say. Throughout the 20th century, communists of all tendencies typically accused their opposing communist sects of not being the 'real communists' and of being 'fascists' instead. One of the earliest examples of this ridiculous theory was promoted by Trotsky who claimed that Stalin was not a real communist at all.
The fact is, that mainstream communists always considered North Korea as a good member of the socialist bloc. There were other somewhat heretical regimes in the Socialist bloc, too, such as Romania under Ceausescu that used nationalist rhetoric just as much as North Korea's 'beloved' leaders too. What's the relevance?
It's communists themselves that argue the distinction between the 'base' (economy) and 'superstructure' (ideology/government). Based on this, North Korea is a typical socialist economy. The most orthodox socialist economy that we still have. The real motivation why some (very few) leftists advance the view that 'NK is actually fascist' theory is that they are simply so ashamed of what socialism really looks like in practice and in the usual lefty manner discard it as 'not real socialism'. Typical scholastic trick known from Trotsky's times. According to this brilliant logic, some compassionate leftist can argue that Stalin was also far-right and fascist. Because the similarities between Stalin and the North Korean monsters are striking. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Not counting WPK is ridiculous. If some people have problems with considering it as a communist party (even past communist), the best solution is just to add a note saying that there are groups considering it as non-communist. Bests Ventic (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
North Korea has removed all reference to Communism from their constitution. Right wing radicals often call it "communist" to demonise Communism. So it is very bias to call North Korea communist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 南天星斗 (talkcontribs) 10:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Your claim is strongly emotional. I can say "Some left wing radicals often dont want to call it communist to de-demonise communism. so it is extremely biased not to call North Korea communist, or even to call it right wing dictatorship". The truth is that WPC still participates in International Communist movement, is historically deeply rooted in communism and still keeps references to socialism and aknowledges its respect towards communism. Bests Ventic (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Workers' Party of Korea isn't considered as communist party now.[1] North Korea has removed all references to Marxism–Leninism and communism in general in its constitution and replaced its state ideology with Juche, and the ideology of the Workers' Party of Korea being Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism which resemble more of a far-right feudalism than a far-left Stalinism. what a laugh! in NK, your so-called communist state, you can't read the books of Marx and Lenin.AsharaDayne (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not a common point of view. Encyclopedia requires some objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventic (talkcontribs) 13:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
but your point of view was anti-communist and partial, just you said communism is crime. AsharaDayne (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not writing anywhere about my point of view. I'm underlining only that not-considering WPK as communist is case of only part of people interested in the topic. And I can see that you are quasi-religiously attached to communism. Ventic (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
it's a personal attack. and i see your goal only in wiki is adding WPK into the article. you should know not all members of IMCWP are communist, like Socialist People's Front, Palestinian People's Party and WPK. so this isn't a evidence. AsharaDayne (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a personal attack from your side. And you support your claims by nothing. Ventic (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
you're blind. WPK don't think itself as communist and you do. see WPK's programm and DPRK's constitution.AsharaDayne (talk) 02:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Shin, Gi-wook (2006). Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy. Stanford University Press. ISBN 9780804754088. 

Map proposal[edit]

Perhaps a map, such as one in the Pirate Parties International article, showing where a communist party is registered, won elected posts, etc., would be a nice addition to this article. --94.253.204.88 (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

capitalization of Communist or communist[edit]

The article title says "communist", the article text says "Communist party" but it also says "communist Third International". I think most instanced of "Communist" should be changed to "communist" when they don't refer to a particular political party. I know my communist comrades maintain that "Communist" must refer to a specific vanguard organization and "communist" must refer to our general political theory. The article also says "Left communist", shouldn't this be changed to "left communist"? It also says "Modern (Non ruling)" but later "Defunct (non-ruling)" shouldn't we change "Non ruling" to "non-ruling"? It also refers to the Soviet CP in the lead while linking to Soviet Union, and also refers to the Chinese CP without linking anywhere. So, it looks like there is potential for improvement here. I'll make some changes, if you disagree just discuss ok? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

North Cyprus[edit]

The party provided for North Cyprus is actually a social democratic party in the Republic of Cyprus. As far as i know it has no participation in politics in the north. There is a communist party in the North but im 100% sure its not EDEK. Lefterisg9 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over inclusion/classification of certain parties[edit]

I've noticed that User:南天星斗 appears to be engaging in edit-warring behavior, removing and reclassifying certain parties in the list and persistently undoing other editors' reversions. In the interest of assuming good faith, following the three-revert rule and attempting to achieve consensus on this issue I'd like to invite them to justify their recent edits here and discuss the issues they attempted to boldly address regarding the inclusion or classification of certain parties in the list. Anarkinsey (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you mean DPRK, see above please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 南天星斗 (talkcontribs) 19:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

WPK and communism[edit]

The topic (discussed already here) may be a bit controversial, because there's no clear statement what communism is and some groups like anarcho-communism, juche or even social-democracy have a lot in common and belong to wide family of communist and far left movement. Because of that it should be at least mentionned here with corresponding links.

With the WPK the situation is a bit more complicated, because of unclear statements of North Korean government over it. For example NK economy has more in common with communism than Chinese or Vietnamese. On the other hand Juche is often shown as a separate movement (to make the personality cult stronger), even if it is just a specific modification of marxism-leninism-stalinism-maoism. For majority it is still communist.

Saying that it's not communist but rather far-right feudal state is fake though. It depends on what perspective you have. For Trocki all communist states became nationalist and he didn't accepted them as communist. For some China is not communist in reality because of its quasi-capitalist economy and weak social support. What's more Marks and Engels already in their manifesto declared that there's only tiny difference between nationalism and communism. Racial and national policies were applied at some level in nearly every communist country. For example in Romania, Poland, Soviet Union, China (Tibet or Uyghur areas), Czechoslovakia, GDR.

The changes in NK's constitution and WPK's statute are recent, and many « demonisation » arguments are in this context just illusoric.

Bests

Ventic (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, we need a compromise.AsharaDayne (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Why don't we just put NK and the WPK under their own subtitle in a similar way that have on the communist state Wikipedia page TURTLOS (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Unclear infromation[edit]

In what regard do the communist parties of Israel, Russia and Palestine count as ruling parties, the links to the ruling coalition beside each of these parties brings up the national Legislatures of the nations. Also i think that the People's Victory Party in Uruguay should be added next to the communist party of Uruguay under (Communist parties as ruling parties or part of ruling coalition in multi-party states), altough it is aligned to some anarchist movements and may have been anarcho-communist in the past it isn't technically anarchist anymore and thus should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talkcontribs) 10:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)