Talk:Communist International

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

No Mention of the Russian Revolution?[edit]

The section onthe second Communist International being disbanded completes, and there is no mention of the fact that Russian Revolution occurs prior to the founding of the Third International? Seems relevant to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingraoul3 (talkcontribs) 05:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Needs Adjusting[edit]

Someone needs to fix the top of the page where it seems someone has vandalised it. It is written "no no no" or something to that effect. If I could change this, I would, but I do not have that ability. much thanks.

Needs editing[edit]

This article should be edited into idiomatic English; much of it appears to have been written by someone whose native language is not English.

Old talk[edit]

This page needs a lot more info. I've made a link to a list of parties in the comintern (this may be a good way of picking out official communist parties from the unofficial ones). However I've still yet to discover a proper list of them.

I think we need some stuff about what led the comintern to be shut down. A full list of the 21 conditions would probably be good too. Secretlondon 12:07, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)

There is no proper list of the sections of the Comintern. For the simple reason that the sections were never completely stable. What you will find is lists of the parties invited to the first Congress and then lists of attendees at the subsequent Congresses. You may have to dig a little. I'll add a list for the Firsat Congress if it helps you. Taken from Theses, manifestos and resolutions of the fist |four Congresses of the Comintern.

AS you mention 'orthodox communist parties' I should say that no such creature exists or existed. Again because there was never an agreed upon orthodoxy until orthodoxy was forced on the Comintern during so called Bolshevization in the 1920s. Such Bolshevization, Zinovievisation, leading to the departure of many of the founders of the various CPs. This after the departure of the Left communists who formed the Communist Workers International and before the expulsion of both the Left and right Oppositional elements who formed their own international bodies. The International Left Opposition and the International Communist Organisation respectively.

Jock Haston


I have no clue what this picture is of - If someone knows, please label accordingly x_x

By the way, Richard Chilton uploaded that pic. -_- WhisperToMe 04:49, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  • Why is Comintern spelled in capitals in the article title and in the text? This was not the usual English usage.
  • In any case, why is the article called Comintern and not Communist International, the organisation's correct name?

Adam 10:50, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1) The spelling seems to be about half and half either way (via Google.) 2) 45,000 vs. 33,000 on Google for the abbreviation vs. the long form. -Joseph (Talk) 10:54, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

I don't think Google should be the determinant. The organisation was called the Communist International. Comintern was a Russian abbreviation which later became established jargon within the Communist parties. The article should use the correct name, with a redirect from Comintern. Adam 11:09, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, they used COMINTERN in my PoliSci classes. How about yours? -Joseph (Talk) 11:18, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

In capitals? I doubt that. Anyway, an encyclopaedia is not just for the petit bourgeois intelligentsia. It is for the broad masses of the proletariat and peasantry. In any case this is a very inadequate article which I will have a go at rewriting when I have time. Adam 11:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You think? Google apparently has been the deciding factor in a lot of cases. I had to live with it for reconnaissance satellite versus spy satellite, so guess what. It applies to everyone. And listen to you get all Marxist on us! I can only assume you're doing it for effect. -13:52, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to those who insist on accurate usages. Adam 01:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Heh. That's exactly what I was trying to do. COMINTERN is at least as accurate as Communist International. Wikipedia rules are for everyone. -Joseph (Talk) 01:55, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

The entry is total rubbish at present. No use to anybody and terribly unbalanced. This was an incredibly important body for much of its history. I've not the time to begin a proper rewrite at present but I will map out a rough structure that will allow the entry to be rerwritten in easy chuncks taking into consideration its history. I would also suggest renaming Communist International as this was its proper name despite the common use of the abreviation Comintern. I would also suggest moving liusts such as the Twenty-One Conditions and lits of affiliated parties and so forth to their own entries. This will allow their reproduction in full without unbalancing this entry. Heres hoping these suggestions work for youse guys.

Jock Haston

Names of the post 1947 meetings?[edit]

While writing the History of Poland (1945-1989), I wanted to link 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (the famous one whit Chruszczew's denounciation of Stalin) but I can't even find the right name for it (20th Congress) links to US Congress session... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Title Spelled Wrong in Russian?[edit]

Compare Коммунистичекий and Kommunisticheskiy.

One of them is wrong, I think. There should either be a с added to the Russian, making Коммунистический or the final s should be removed from the romanization, Kommunistichekiy. -- tharsaile Oct 8 2005

Looks like someone fixed the Russian. Thanks! tharsaile 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

United Nations[edit]

Have removed references to the Comintern being a precursor of the League of Nations and/or UN, or fulfilling similar functions. No idea what the basis of this claim is. Main role of Comintern was to coordinate the activities of international Communist Parties: main role of UN to facilitate cooperation and dialogue between governments of nation states. What do they have in common except the fact of being international? Mattley (Chattley) 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged independence"[edit]

The section on alleged independence smacks of NPOV and original research, as well as being absurdly narrow; also most of what's there was added by someone with a rather questionable record (User:Ashton Coochter), and I'd very much appreciate knowing whether the quote is in fact legit. That said, it is a serious question, and I'm not ready to replace it with anything, so I'm not just going to delete it. Does anyone have any recommendations for sources backing up the section as currently written? Rafaelgr 20:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've removed the wikilink to List of Comintern affiliate organizations, which is not in fact a list of organizations affiliated to the comintern. Rafaelgr 20:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The chapter needs to be rewritten completely. The author severly (consciously?) misinterprets Lenin's speech. To say that the Soviet government and the Comintern had an organic relationship is not the same as to say that the two bodies are the same. The Lenin speech does not point that Comintern would be a subordinate organization to the Soviet state, rather it reaffirms a rhetoric commitment that the Soviet state acted on behalf of the Communist International. --Soman 14:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The Comintern was an organisation completely dependent on Soviet funds, furthermore throughout its entire history the Executive Committee of the Communist International was predominantly staffed by Russians. Whilst, some semblance of independence can be seen prior to Stalin, and also in the action of Comintern on the ground, at the level of high-politics, it is clear that by the time of Stalin's rise to power, the Comintern had become subordinate to the Soviet State apparatus. The replacement of the leader of the Comintern, Piatnitsky with Trilisser (who was head of the INO (foreign Section of the NKVD) is further demonstration of this subordination. Moreover, Communists around the globe were bemoaning the fact that the Comintern was becoming nothing more than an arm of Soviet foreign policy - as seen in the speeches of Clara Zetkin, the famous German Communist, in the 1930s. The issue of alleged independence is a topic best discussed in works by E.H. Carr in his volumes on Soviet Russia. Carr demonstrates that the Comintern was not a 'monolithic entity', it was not completely under the thumb of Stalin, but its ability to deviate substantially from Stalinist lines was very slight.

Perhaps the best indication of the lack of independence of the Comintern from the Soviet State was seen in the purges that occurred under Stalin in the late 1930s - one of the best demonstrations of controlling something is the ability to destroy it - and Stalin did so with brutal force. Asmillar 20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I broadly agree. If you even just copied that into the article, it would be a huge improvement. Rafaelgr 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Pacifism stance questioned[edit]

Twice in the article it's mentioned that the Comintern was pacifist until the USSR was invaded by Germany in 1941, but says nothing about its position on the Soviet aggression against both Poland and Finland 2 years earlier. It seems an overly rosy evaluation of this body to proclaim it pacifist while its supporting state was advancing military might against smaller neighbors. braddeo98 12:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree Indeed, many English communists were disillusioned by Hungary and even Poland. Notable historians such as Christopher Hill and others of his generation. --Rchan89 10:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have severe difficulty to see how the word 'pacifist' came into the article in the first place. Pacifism is not synomymous to peace. Comintern opposed war and national chauvinism, but was never opposed to using violence for revolutionary means. Pacifism is something completly different. --Soman 10:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture needs looking at[edit]

The picture at the top of the page has little to do with the subject matter and should be replaced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Comrade Katayama[edit]

Is the "Comrade Katayama" mentioned in the article Tetsu Katayama? BobFromBrockley 13:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it was Sen Katayama. --Soman 08:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No discussion on interventionist tactics?[edit]

Why are there no references of Cominterns policies towards the creation of Communist China?

There couldn't really be much to say on that, unless you meant something different. The Comintern was dissolved in 1943, the Chinese revolution won in 1949. Archival records show that Stalin was originally hoping to cut a deal with Chiang Kai-Shek, but it proved to be impossible to avoid the civil war which broke out on the ground between Mao and Chiang. There's no reason to see the final defeat of Chiang as having been brought by the Comintern. Now it's true that in the 1920s the Comintern did send advisors to China, and the result was a disastrous rout for the Communist Party of China. Was this what you meant? The process by which the CCP came to power in 1949 was rather closely linked with the distance that grew between it and the Comintern after 1927.

Recent edits[edit]

I have some objections with the recent edits.

  • The Comintern had sections in 40+ countries. The selection by Ultramarine in his latest edits are highly abritrary. My suggestion is that, even though Comintern theoretically was a unified party organization, histories of individual national sections are dealt with in their respective articles.
  • Hungary 1919 is defintely a notable event in the development of the International. The present text is however, highly pov, and seeks to portray the Hungarian revolution as an 'export'. It is also chronologically misplaced in the text.
  • The passage on Pipes' view are also a bit odd in the text. The criticism of the 'social fascism' theory is already presented above, via Isaac Deutscher. However the bulk of the Pipes-passage is dedicated to speculations over the private minds of Hitler and Stalin, and is of no relevance to the article.

--Soman 09:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Comintern was controlled by the Soviet Union, so all major actions taken in other countries were first approved by Moscow. Everything is sourced to acadmeic books. If you want to add information fine. But do not delete other sourced POVs, as per WP:NPOV.Ultramarine 09:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This boils down the chicken-n-egg reasoning. The Soviet Union was governed by the CPSU, which in turn was a section of the Comintern. 'Moscow' in this case becomes somewhat ambigious, since it is highly unlikely that the Soviet government would take any policy decision contrary to the wishes of the Communist Party. --Soman 10:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can find a source for this argument, add it. I have an opposing source for my view, that ultimately the Soviet Communist leaders controlled Comintern and those parties that participated. Again, we follow NPOV.Ultramarine 10:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Garbage. No one is disputing that 'ultimately' that was the character that the organization had. YOu are attempt ing to gloss over its inital character as a parlimentary and representative international organization, in the same way that this article glosses over the Stalinst coup that occured in 1923. Also, there's no way this is an accurate translation: Terror Group of the Revolutionary Council of the Government. Anyone can see this is empty slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingraoul3 (talkcontribs) 05:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Without questioning the factual status of Ultramarine's additions, and without wanting the article to gloss over criticisms and defects of the Comintern, I am a bit worried that Ultramarine's additions are skewing the article badly. To give one example, there were 21 conditions for joining the Comintern - why quote the 3rd and 12th only (i.e. the ones that paint it in as bad a light as possible)? I'd recommend a deep breath, and an attempt at coming up with far more neutral language and a more balanced account. BobFromBrockley 10:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article badly needs some opposing views since most of the article is stongly pro-Comintern, with misleading phrases like "At the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of pacifism and non-intervention" and "Lenin sent his Twenty-one Conditions (which included democratic centralism) to all socialist parties". We could move the opposing views to a criticisms section. Thoughts? Ultramarine 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Any misleading material (and certainly those are two examples of misleading and non-neutral phrases!) need editing. My preference would not be for balancing pro-Comintern material with anti-Comintern material, but as accurate and clear an account as possible, so that readers can come to their own judgements. Am neutral on idea of a criticisms section, but if there is one, it is important that criticisms are attached to notable critics, rather than a list of possible criticisms. The substance of the 21 conditions, or CPSU involvement in other CPs' affairs, are best covered as part of a factual account of the story of the CP. One final point: it is important that the article registers the shifts in Comintern policy over time (e.g. periods of more active support for revolutions in other parts of Europe (immediately after formation) and periods of allowing relative latitude to different national parties).BobFromBrockley 11:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously we should mention the well documented view that ultimately the Soviet Communist leaders controlled Comintern and those parties that participated. As well as what this meant for those parties, like gaining secret internal organizations which liquidated internal or external critics and opponents, often in cooperation with or under the control of the Cheka and the NKVD. As well as the attempted revolts that the Comintern organized and supported. We can certainly attribute these statements to the Black Book of Communism. How the policy shifted over time should certainly be included.Ultramarine 11:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
My experience, from several other political articles, is that 'criticism' chapters are bad way to solve pov disputes. Rather there should be a unified historical account, in which relevant viewpoints be included (private spreculations, be they of very notable persons, do not fill that criteria). As per the 21 conditions, I think that they are notable enough to include all 21 in total. --Soman 11:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
A seperate criticisms section may not be necessary. Regardless, NPOV requires the inclusion of views from both sides.Ultramarine 11:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Its certainly is the case that the Russian party has great moral authority in the Comintern. The leadership of the Comintern, of course, was multinational but in terms of the ECCI and the staff in Moscow broadly. THere is a real debate, for example with Trotsky, over the role of the Comintern leaders when they gave advice to national parties. That is well documented and easy to source. Generally I agree with Bob that we should moderate any pro-Comintern POV. I see the 21 conditions as a Comintern issue rather than something specfic to the CPSU, but there's no need to list them when we can hyperline; and it may be misleading to select one or two since the point was that the conditions as a whole were needed to exclude the opportunists. Notable criticisme are appropriate, but could work better in the body rather than as a separate section.--Duncan 15:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine has reverted what Soman has removed. I have gone back to Soman's revision and suggest that these disputed sections stay out of the article until we win consesus here. Taking these selective conditions is misleading: it suggests that the conditions aimed to Bolshevise the Communist parties, in fact the main reason was to use all the conditions as a whole to win them to Communist positions. The list of failed communist overturns is wasteful and not relevant: one could simple link to the page about the Black Book and ensure that those details are added there. TYere's no need to duplicate them. Furthermore, we need to week out actions of the Comintern from those of the CPs or Hitler, for which the ECCI was not responsible. --Duncan 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The material is sourced to an academic book. It clearly implicates the Comintern in these actions. See also my earlier comments above. See also Wikipedia:NPOV, views from all sides should be presented. If you disagree with this view, add another sourced one yourself.Ultramarine 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Some points:

  • Trying to pass of the Black Book as a reasonable source on the history of the communist movement doesn't really work. I have difficult to see why, considering the abundance of published historical material on the early communist movement, one would follow the disposition of the Black Book (except if the purpose is to introduce gross pov in the article)
  • I object to the formulations leading to present comintern as some sort of of international spy central that sent out its minions to spread devastation around the world. Lenin was not a 007 super-villian that ordered communists worldwide to rip havoc in europe. The article has to present the comintern as a political movement, not a conspiracy of evil.
  • This article is about the comintern, which is not synonymous with history of communism, nor with history of the cpsu, nor stalin, nor is it correct to see the comintern only as an extension of soviet foreign policy. The comintern was a political movement, notable enough on its own right. I don't think there is any major political issue where the comintern and soviet govt differed, but that is not to say that they are one and same. Comintern was a forum of quite elaborate internal debates, which in turn affected the policies adopted by the soviet govt.
  • I severely dispute that "All the Commuist Parties gained secret military wings." Since the black book is not an online source, I would appreciate a quotation at this talk page from the book on this issue.
  • The China issue is factually incorrect. The relations between the soviet and chinese cps continued to be problematic, and cpc would later claim that they did not receive full support from comintern and the soviet union. moreover, soviet union intervened inside china, not favouring the cpc.
  • What Stalin "privately hoped" we do not know. Nor does Pipes.
  • Likewise what Hitler "privately considered"...
  • The argument that Hitler and Mussolini saw SU is 1) not related to the subject of this article, 2) based upon speculation, 3) guilt-by-association. Hitler claimed that his 3rd Reich was inspired by the Roman Empire. Does that make Julius Ceasar an accomplice to the Holocaust?
  • There is already mention of the criticism of the 'social fascism' theory and the KPD electoral tactics of 1933. Personally, I don't think this argument should be stretched to far. Of course it would have been good if the electoral result would have been different, but the rise of Fascism in Europe in the 1930s was not caused by electoral aritmatics. The WWII would not necessarily have been avoided either. Moreover, if SPD had not ordered massacres of demonstrating workers (blutmai), perhaps the antifascist front would have been easier to build.
  • Likewise, many people might feel that Ralph Nader is guilty for having Bush elected in 2000. That argument might be right, if one supposes that Nader voters would have voted for Gore had Nader not contended (largely probable, but not certain. Likewise had KPD been in coalition with SPD, would then more KPD/SPD voters have voted for NSDAP?). However, to say that Nader is guilty for the Iraq War or Abu Ghraib is far fletched, and definately not encyclopediatic.

--Soman 19:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As an academic book, it is the most reliable source available. You dislike its views and think it is incorrect. You give some claimed examples above. Fine, then add those views, if there is a source, to the article. Again, read WP:NPOV, we present views from both sides, Wikipedia should not be a soapbox for the pro-Comintern view, see WP:SOAP. Simply mass deleting well-sourced material is not acceptable. Regarding military wings, that was as mentioned condition 3 and I quote from p. 282 "All Communist parties, including the legally constituted ones in democratic republics, possessed a secret military wing" I will reduce the material from Pipes book to that which only deals with German election.Ultramarine 22:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
A few questions:
  • To say that the Black Book is 'academic' is a bit of broad streching of the term. The issue is not whether it has a list of references, but the way the book is formulated and with what purpose. I'm my perception, it contains a mishmash of claims and numbers, but with little real historical analysis. The purpose of the book is to present communism as inherently evil, and it constantly selects whatever perspective that seems to support such an understanding. I'm not saying that it should never be used as a reference at wiki, but I advocate against using its disposition of the book to explain the historical development of the communist movement. I do not agree to making the Comintern article inte a resume of 1-2 chapters of the Black Book.
  • Is the present article a pro-Comintern soapbox? If so, which formulations do you find problematic?
  • the 21 conditions are availible at [1], and condition 3 is very different from the quote you've given.

--Soman 07:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is published in university academic press and written by many academics, that is as academic you can get. The perception of an anonynmous Wikipedia editor is not very interesting. If you want to dspute the factual accuracy of the book, publish in an academic journal of book. An online pro-Marxist website is definitely not a reliable source. Again, you disagree with the books statements, fine. Add your own sourced opposing ones. But NPOV prohibits deletion of the views of one side. I have already described the problems with current article above.Ultramarine 11:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is obviously a way to divert the debate. The issue is not whether the Black Book is an academic work or not, nor whether I agree or disagree with statements from that book. Please read the three points raised in my previous posting, and we can procede in the discussion. --Soman 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1. The perception of an anonynmous Wikipedia editor is not very interesting. If you want to criticze an academic book, cite acadmic sources, not your own opinions. NPOV requires the inclusion of the views of both sides.
2. Already explained this above.
3. An online pro-Marxist website is definitely not a reliable source.Ultramarine 22:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick answers:

1. Again you miss the point. This is the talk page, and if you propose the usage of a certain source you must be able to argue in its favour. To say that my perceptions are not interesting (note that this is the talk page, not the article mainspace) is basically to state that you are not interested in discussion at all. Is that a correct understanding? If so we can just skip this charade and continue edit-warring.
2. Where 'above'?
3. The source this the original document in full text. I.e. the same that the authors of the Black Book read. To state that since it is published by marxists it should not be read is a dead end. If these where not the 21 conditions, which where the they? Perhaps you have unique access to some secret protocols?

--Soman 22:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It is an academic source, the most reliable sort available. You have given no reason for excluding beside your personal feelings. If you want to criticze its claims, cite a source, not yourself.
2. The article badly needs some opposing views since most of the article is stongly pro-Comintern, with misleading phrases like "At the start of World War II, the Comintern supported a policy of pacifism and non-intervention" and "Lenin sent his Twenty-one Conditions (which included democratic centralism) to all socialist parties". Also it is almost completely unsourced.
3. The Russian original can probably be translated in different ways, especially if one want to give a certain impression. An academic book is more reliable than a website.Ultramarine 22:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Again, with the risk of being repetitive, my argument is not against the usage of the source in general, but in using its disposition to describe the chronological development of the communist movement. The Black Book is written with a clear political purpose, it presents only material relevant attempt to prove its main pov. To use its structure to build up this article would definately constitute a malafide approach.
2. In general: Creating npov articles is not a zero sum game, 50% anti-comintern pov + 50% pro-comintern pov does not equal a neutral article. Rather, critize those passages objectionable to you, and/or edit them in the mainspace.
2.1: I had objected to the 'pacifism' term used (see talk above). My memory was the the wording had been changed, but apparently that edit never went through.
2.2: What is the pov twist of the sentence "Lenin sent his Twenty-one Conditions (which included democratic centralism) to all socialist parties"? Are you saying he did not send the out his thesis?
3. Well, scan original comintern documents, the english translation are the official comintern ones. Unless you're seriously accusing them of forgery, it would seem that the mispresentation would lie in the Black Book. Does the BB present all conditions in full text? (the quote you've given doesn't point that way, considering that the grammatical formulation is quite different from the langauage used in the conditions ('posseses', instead of 'have to possess', etc.).).

--Soman 23:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Even if the BBOC was written with a clear political purpose, that is no reason for excluding its view, see NPOV. If you argue that its presentaion is biased, then add your own sourced material.
2. I am criticzing the description of its history and adding sourced material. These events are very significant events and should be mentioned. Regarding mentioning only democratic centralism among the 21 points, that is misleading, see the points included in my text. Also there was little democracy in practice.
3. is an online pro-Marxist webiste. I have never found any seriously negative texts there, like Lenin's hanging order. An online website is the least reliable source there is.Ultramarine 23:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: 3. The Marxist Internet Archive is a reliable source. It is maintained by academics who conform to very rigorous standards. It uses the oldest available original text and reproduces it in as complete as possible a form. It does not just make available Marxist texts, but also some anti-Marxist texts (e.g. FBI reports[2], anarchist polemics), and it certainly makes available texts from a wide variety of Marxist perspectives, including ones highly critical of the Comintern. BobFromBrockley 10:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Lots of unsourced claims. I note again that very negative material, like Lenin's Hanging Order, is nowhere to be found.Ultramarine 07:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This text may not be there, but then no on-line archive can be comprehensive. Yes, they are a pro-Marxist site, but that does not make them an unreliable source (if you followed that logic, Black Book would obviously be an unreliable source too, as it is explicitly anti-Communist). How important, really, is Lenin's hanging order? Please, fellow editors, don't let this article become a soapbox for pro- or anti-Comintern polemics; it will have no value as a source of information if that happens. BobFromBrockley 10:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
As one example documenting Lenin's personal responsibiliy for the terror, it is certainly noteworthy. More generally, almost none of the material from the opened arhives can be found. The site only present Communist propaganda or theoretical writings, not what the Communists did in practice when they gained power.Ultramarine 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This becomes absurd. MIA is an online resource for Marxist theory, not a research institution on political science. Again Ultramarine tries to create pseudo-debates to avoid the actual controversy here, namely that he prefers an obviously flawed presentation of the 3rd condition rather than the authentic wording. Rather he could present which document is the source for the wording from the BB. --Soman 10:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The books is an academic sourced, the most reliable available in Wikipeida. It documents very important events in the history of the Comintern. If you disagree, add your own sourced material.Ultramarine 11:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Then please, specify which document (or other material) is the source for the wording 'military organization' in the BB. At some point we should be able to move on. --Soman 11:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you referring to the "M-Apparat" or something else in the sourced deleted text you deleted? [3] The existence of this organization is not controversial.Ultramarine 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to 'military wing' (mix-up on my behalf of the words 'wing' and 'organization'). To refresh your memory, above I disputed the wording 'all communist parties ... gained secret military wings'. You responded by referring to the BB, which in turn refered to the 3rd condition. I put up a quotation of the 3rd condition from the original text, you began to dispute the accuracy of documents on webservers hosted by marxists. --Soman 11:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I stated that original text is in Russian and that the translations probably vary, depending on intended effect.Ultramarine 11:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy that. If you read the wording from the protocol at MIA the text reads "In almost every country in Europe and America the class struggle is entering the phase of civil war. Under such conditions the communists can place no trust in bourgeois legality. They have the obligation of setting up a parallel organisational apparatus which, at the decisive moment, can assist the party to do its duty to the revolution. In every country where a state of siege or emergency laws deprive the communists of the opportunity of carrying on all their work legally, it is absolutely necessary to combine legal and illegal activity.". The text you've taken from BB reads "All Communist parties, including the legally constituted ones in democratic republics, possessed a secret military wing". These are quite different, and this cannot just be explained by faulty translations. Thus I wonder, since BB is so greatly sourced and academic, what it specifies as its source for this claim? --Soman 11:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside MIA as a source, the claim that all CPs had secret military wings is clearly an over-generalised claim. There were some, but obviously not all parties had them. BobFromBrockley 11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to work through this article and try and knock it into some shape. So far, I'm up to the Second Congress only, and put everthing in chronological order and added some references. I'll probably not get much further today. BobFromBrockley 11:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) The text says: ' The manifesto adopted as the Second Congress announed: "The Communist International is the international party for insurrection and proletarian dictatorship." ' What is the source for this? There was no single manifesto adopted at the Second Congress, but a series of papers and resolutions. I have looked through them all (though not with a fine tooth comb!) and can't find it. It reads wrong to me. BobFromBrockley 11:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The 21 Conditions: These were not secret; they were widely distributed by the Comintern, who translated them into every language they that was spoken by the parties they were trying to meld into the International. It was published by the Comintern in English very soon after the Congress. As there was an official translation into English, it seems to me appropriate to use this version. Where does the Black Book get its version? From the Russian original? Surely, an official English translation at the time is the better version to quote? BobFromBrockley 12:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As per sourcing of the texts I've quoted at, see [4]. Note: "A stenographic report of the 2nd Congress of the Comintern was published in German in Hamburg in 1921 and in Russian translation that same year. A second edition in Russian was published in 1934, correcting some important errors. An English translation (in two volumes) of the German original was published by New Park Publications in 1977." --Soman 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Clearly then that is the text we should be using. BobFromBrockley 17:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have an opposing academic view, add it. Wikipedia does not attempt to decide the truth. We present views from all sides. If you disagree, fine, add another sourced.Ultramarine 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Your addition is not a 'view' in this case, but an obvious distortion of facts. The way to proceded is that you, repeating, identify which source the Black Book uses. --Soman 08:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You are citing a particular translation from an pro-Marxist online website as evidence that a published academic book by many different respected authors is false. The Black Book probably translated the original Russian version, not some later changed/censored version.Ultramarine 08:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC), the original was in German. Am I to understand that you don't have the BB in your possession at the moment, since you use the wording 'probable'? If you want to use BB as the source, then arguments what it 'probably' contains is by no means sufficient. --Soman 08:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have cited the text from an academic book. You cite an online pro-Marxist website. Which is the most reliable source? Ultramarine 08:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, then you shouldn't have any problem at all clarifying for us which is the source used in the BB, right? The BB has an index of sources, right? Just look up the page, find the reference, and name it to us. It should take less than a minute. --Soman 08:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding what claim? If it yet another discussion regarding how to translate the 21 points, then we have already discussed this.Ultramarine 08:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and we are not proceding, as you refuse to provide a more detailed reference than that the BB 'probably' uses a Russian original. Just name the reference, and we can proceed. --Soman 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It states that "the manifesto adopted at the Second Congress proudly announced..." Ultramarine 08:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, your own source is not different: " In almost every country in Europe and America the class struggle is entering the phase of civil war. Under such conditions the communists can place no trust in bourgeois legality. They have the obligation of setting up a parallel organisational apparatus which, at the decisive moment, can assist the party to do its duty to the revolution. In every country where a state of siege or emergency laws deprive the communists of the opportunity of carrying on all their work legally, it is absolutely necessary to combine legal and illegal activity."[5]Ultramarine 08:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
And where is there any indiction of military wings here? The purpose of the 3rd condition is clear, and responds to debates at the time in the socialist movement. Once sector (reformists) believed that socialism could be achevied through gradual reforms within the legal boundaries of the bourgeois state. Thus their entire organizational network was overground and public. The communist line was different, namely that the party must be able to adapt to a radily changing scenario, and be able to conduct both over- and underground political activities. Note that the 3rd condition talks about an 'aparatus', not a separate wing. Rotfront, Red Guards, and similar organisations in other countries, was something completly different and in the case of the German Rotfront, a later creation.--Soman 09:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That is your own interpretation. "a parallel organisational apparatus which, at the decisive moment, can assist the party to do its duty to the revolution." is of course, as the BB notes, only a transparent euphemism for an organization ready to participate in a violent proletarian revolution.Ultramarine 09:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

THE BLACK BOOK was published in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War and received a measure of public promotion which more serious academic works never get. Mark Tauger, in his review of the chapter in THE BLACK BOOK devoted to the famine of 1932-3, has shown how THE BLACK BOOK ignores the published research based upon the formerly secret Soviet archives and gives the reader an erroneous impression of what the newly opened archives tell us.

THE BLACK BOOK tosses out dramatic claims alleging tens of millions of abnormal peacetime deaths in the USSR and PCR, but does not include the available demographic data which an objective reader would wish to see (although such data is available and has been published elsewhere). No, THE BLACK BOOK is definitely not an authoritative book for anything except an illustration of triumphalism after the Cold War. Archibald Getty found it necessary to comment in his preface to THE ROAD TO TERROR:

"The new documentation has confirmed other aspects of the terror that I have suspected for some time. For one thing, the archival evidence from the secret police rejects the astronomically high estimates often given for the number of terror victims... We should not need to artificially run up the score to tens of millions of victims to realize the horror of Stalinism." -- p. xiv.

Getty & Naumov's work is based upon an intense examination of archival evidence, as is the case with Mark Tauger. THE BLACK BOOK does not properly reflect such research and may be safely set aside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ECCI of 1920[edit]

At [6] the discussion on the election of the ECCI is presented. A list of nominees is presented, and it is noted that two extra delegates were elected and Wanek's motion adopted. Who were the two extra ECCI members? The ones proposed by Roy? Names? --Soman 14:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) see below. --Soman 14:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ECCI of the Third Congress[edit]

Once some order has been established in the current chaos of the article, the following passage could be included:

The 3rd Congress of the Communist International elected an Executive Committee consisting of:

Italy: Terracini, Gennari Russia: Zinoviev, Bukharin, Radek, Lenin, Trotsky Ukraine: Muskii Poland: Warski Bulgaria: Popov Yugoslavia: Markovich Norway: Shefflo Britain: Bell United States of America: “Baldwin” [Oscar Tyverovsky] Spain: Merino Gracia Finland: Sirola Holland: Janson Belgium: Van Overstraaten Sweden: Kilbom, Arikhold Latvia: Stuchka Austria: Korichoner Hungary: Bela Kun Executive Committee of the Youth International: Münzenberg, Lekai. [1] --Soman 14:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See [7], for some clarity on ECCI. --Soman 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a temp page, at User:Soman/comtemp. Once I'm finished with the temp and the chronology of the article gets decent, I'll chop it up and place passages in the article. --Soman 21:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pipes on WWII[edit]

I have removed this paragraph from the section on the 1924-35 period:

According to Richard Pipes, the Soviet Union, acting through the Comintern, shared some responsibility for World War II. According to Pipes, Stalin hoped that another world war would weaken his foreign enemies and allow him to assert Soviet power internationally. Before Hitler took power, Stalin allowed the testing and production of German weapons that were forbidden by the Versailles Treaty to occur on Soviet territory. Stalin is also accused of weakening German opposition to the Nazis before Hitler's rule began in 1933. During the 1932 German elections, for instance, he forbid the German Communists from collaborating with the Social Democrats. These parties together gained more votes than Hitler and, some have later surmised, could have prevented him from becoming Chancellor.[2]

This is speculation. It belongs in Criticisms of Communist party rule or Origins of World War II, not in this article. Please make a strong case for inclusion here before considering reinserting it. BobFromBrockley 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic source. If objecting, source another one for a different view.Ultramarine 19:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You really have to loosen up. Just because something is publish doesn't force us to include it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soap-box. Answer with arguments instead. --Soman 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You have given no arguments except you personally dislike this information. NPOV requres the includion of all views.Ultramarine 07:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not information, but speculation. I have argued why I object to the wording above, you have not answered. --Soman 08:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Lots of facts are included. Pipes argues for a particular interpretation. That is not OR disallowed in Wikipedia since it is published in an academic source. Such academic argumentation is certainly allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 08:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that it would be OR. However, the passage adds nothing of encyclopediatic value to article. It remains speculations based on the personal pov of the author. Furthermore, it duplicates an existing pasage on the exact same issue. --Soman 08:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not any more speculation that most of Marx claims, for instance. He cites some supporting facts and argues for a particular interpretation. Pipes does the same. Both allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 08:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Relatedly, I have moved this out of the section on Comintern support for the Allies:

Nevertheless, a document dated 11 July 1941 making a strategic assessment for the United States War Department entitled Military Intelligence Estimates Prepared by G-2 (p. 1341) states "The Comintern through the Soviet Regime is striving for a world revolution in the interests of Communism." [8]

Again, this is speculation; the historical record now is more important than a single espionage assessment at the time. BobFromBrockley 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Document of interest[edit]

[9], regarding the removal of Levi, and Comintern policy on insurrections. --Soman 11:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

and [10]. --Soman 11:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet carefully censored collection of Lenin's works is certainly not a reliable source. To see what really happened, as far as this is possible, you have to examine the archives, like the Black Book have done.Ultramarine 07:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying that all Lenin's works were falsified? If you claim that this particular text would be faulty, please give a source. --Soman 08:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily falsified, but certainly censored. See this: [11]Ultramarine 08:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
And do you have any reason to suspect that had been the case regarding the two documents provided here? or are just ranting for the sake of rant? --Soman 08:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
You have not stated any particular interpretaion, but if you disagree with an academic work such as the Black Book, you have to publish yourself in academia. Wikipedia does not allowed OR or citing primary documents.Ultramarine 08:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the talk page, not the article mainspace. I stumbled across these to documents in the collected works, and I added links to them here assisance to further discussions, including regarding some issues raised in your additions. The fact that you are so keen to block discussions on the issues shows your own bad faith approach to the subject at hand. --Soman 08:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This is not a webforum for general discussion of the subject.Ultramarine 08:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a discussion forum regarding the text of the article mainspace. You added a bit on Levi, and I think this is a fair place to discuss those passages. Regarding the linked documents, a distinction has to be made. The letter itself is an original document, and would the OR to use as a source. The footnotes, however, are not part of the original document but are later editorial additions and thus totally legit as sourcing for articles. --Soman 08:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
A censored Soviet collection, including its footnotes, is not a reliable source.Ultramarine 09:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
So, 800-pages of anti-communist rant is a bible, whereas no soviet sources are to be used? There is no doubt that the wordings in the footnotes are carefully edited expression of official Soviet viewpoints, but that does not make them unreliable by fault. Probably they are written by academics, btw. --Soman 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course, in the Soviet Union academics who disagreed with party line were deported to the Gulags and there were no free academic discussion or peer review. But we could certainly include the official Soviet view, clearly stating the source, and let the reader decide for themselves.Ultramarine 09:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a debate on the instructions which the Comintern gave to foreign parties away from the USSR, then of course Lenin's published writings are relevant. Archival documnents have relevance for deciding what the motives within Moscow may have been for certain policies implemented through the Comintern. But all such policies had to be communicated to the foreign Communist parties through the Comintern organs, and it is those writings by Lenin which were sent abroad that determine what such foreign CPs were actually told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On Black Book additions[edit]

I borrowed a copy of the Swedish edition of the Black Book, and regarding the additions of text by Ultramarine with the Black Book as its reference, i would like bring some issues to discussion:

1.Bob has already pointed out the issues relating to the semantics of the term ’purge’

2.Regarding the 3rd condition, the Black Book doesn’t provide any source. Thus, we can either choose an official and sourced translation, or the unsourced one from the Black Book (which most probably has copied the official Soviet translation into French , which later has been modified into English. However the aauthors of the Black Book abstains from good academic custom to state when their use of italics differ from the original).

3.Regarding ”Writings from the third Congress talked about how the struggle could be transformed into "civil war" when the circumstances were favorable and "openly revolutionary uprisings"” is also a bit mispresented. The Black Book refers to the passage in ’On Tactics’: ”The Communist Party must work through words and actions to convince the widest sections of the proletariat that, given the right combination of circumstances, every economic and political conflict can develop into a civil war which raises the question of the seizure of state power.”[12] A distinction must be made here: The wordings used in the congress document must be seen with the background of Marxist theory of class struggle. The wording used is ’can develop’, not ’can be developed’ nor ’ could be transformed’. Moreover, the original document uses the word ’conflict’, not struggle (as used in the edits in the article, don’t know which word used in the english version of the Black Book). The class struggle exists prior to the formation of the Comintern, and although the communists play a role in the political conflicts, the accentuation of the conflict occurrs depending to economical causes, not the number of leaflets distributed by the communists. I’m not quite sure exactly what in the document ’open revolutionary uprising’ task the authors of the Black Book mentions. The authors of the Black Book doesn’t specify their source, which version the are referring to, which page, etc..

4.I have already criticized the sentence ”All the Commuist Parties gained secret military wings”. It is more or less copied out of a sentence in the Black Book. This sentence has two problematic aspects: 1) The wording ’all’ directly implies that this deals with all communist parties at the time. Did the Portuguese Communist Party have a military wing? Spanish? Norwegian? Indian? Of course such a statement would need a quite solid source. The Black Book gives a reference a bit below (unclear if it also back up this statement, or if it only relates to the German situation discussed in between the sentence and the footnote), saying ’one may read about this in Jan Valtin’s memoirs’. No specific reference to which pages or chapter in Valtin’s memoirs that would back up the statement that all communist parties had a military wing. Moreover, Valtin’s memoirs cannot be classified as an academic source. (see [13] for commentary on the book. Anecdotically the Swedish version of Valtin’s book, the reference in the Swedish version of the Black Book, was translated by Nils Holmberg) Secondly, what does it imply to have ’military wing’? Many communist parties had organizations and branches within the armed forces. At a time when almost all European countries had big conscription armies, it made quite a lot of sense, without any conspirational overtones, to have a political presence in the barracks. Rotfront, and similar structures in other countries, was however something different. Political life interwar Germany was at many points violent, and Rotfront filled a role in protecting the rallies, leaders and offices of the KPD, and attacking those of their opponents. A curious detail, present in the Black Book but missing in Ultramarine’s edits, is the Rotfront’s role in combatting the Nazi onslaught on the leftwing movements. Note also that the authors of the Black Book do not link the 'military wings' to the 3rd condition.

5.The breakout of the Hungarian revolution occured prior to the foundation of the Comintern. Of course the lessons drawn from Hungary and the debates in Comintern on this should be dealt with in the article, but the wordings introduced by Ultramarine do not fit. The Hungarian revolution was ongoing whilst the first congress was held, but by the time the Comintern was consolidated as a politically active organization the Hungarian uprising was since long defeated. (the Black Book refers to 1920, the second congress when the 21 conditions were adopted, as the ’real’ foundation of the Comintern).

6.The listing of ’events’ presented in the chrology of the Ultramarine’s additions (Hungary, Germany, Estonia, Bulgaria, China) is a very odd presention regarding the development of the communist movement during these years. The Black Book is obviously a highly titled selection of details, and with Ultramarine’s selection of details, the article gets titles even further.

7.Regarding the March Action, ”When this failed Lenin ordered the removal of the leader of the Communist Party of Germany, Paul Levi, from power.” does not having any backing in the source that it quotes. The Black Book rather says that it was Zioviev that was behind the enthusiasm for the insurgencies, and that Lenin had been critical of Zinoviev on this point. The Black Book just says that Levi was expelled from the ’organization’ (Comintern or VKPD?), but anything on who argued for his expulsion.

8.The passage on China is highly misleading. There should of course be mention of the Chinese question and Comintern in the article, with backdrop of debates on the colonial question between Lenin and Roy, as well as the intricate Soviet double dealings with various groups in China at the time, but the passage added doesn’t even give justice to the short presentation of the Black Book.

--Soman 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I congratulate you on acquiring the book and hope you will read the other chapters also.
1. Feel free to add sourced opposing views.
2. The essence of the translations seems similar.
3-4. The Communist Party in Russia gained power in an armed coup using a military organiztion. It would be surprising if this was not noted by the other Communist parties who followed Moscow's lead. All parties that joined by the Comintern were required to create a parallell organization as per the 21 points. The content cited in the book shows quite clearly that all these parties were supposed to prepare for such an armed uprising. How far this went can of course be discussed, but the general principle is clear.
5. We can clarify the timeline.
6. Feel free to add sourced opposing views.
7. p. 277 "Although Lenin was fundamentally in agreement with Paul Levi, he handed control of the KPD over to Levi's opponents in order to strengthen his own control over the Comintern".
8. Exactly what is wrong?
Generally, if opposing views are missing, add them. But NPOV requires the inclusion of all views and these are notable events in the history of the Comintern.Ultramarine 21:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In short:
3-4: The linkage between the 3rd condition and the 'military wings' is one made by yourself, and does not have backing in the Black Book. I stated my viewpoints on the 3rd condition above, namely that one must relate to the functions of the conditions in the specific historical context of the split of the 2nd international.
5. The question is how much material should be dedicated to the pre-history of Comintern. Also the vast bulk of the 'Origins' chapter should be cut. That material belongs in other articles.
6: My point is that these additions have to be complemented with additions on the general development of the Comintern as a political movement. All the cases mentioned are notable enough on their own, but the overall history of the International needs to be added.
7: It doesn't really say that Lenin expelled him, or that Lenin had 'ordered his removal'. Rather it says that Levi had been expelled from the organization (not specifying by whom the decision had been taken). 'Handed over' (in swedish version 'överlämnade', similar meaning) can have multiple interpretations. One is the most literal, to give something that is physically in your hand and put in someone else's hand. But here it has the more symbolical connotation, namely that Lenin left the VKPD leadership in the hands of people with whom he differed politically. There is a difference in meaning here. Levi's expulsion should be mentioned in the article, but I object to the overpersonalization of how decisionmaking in the communist movement is done. Comintern was not Lenin's private property, and it would not have been Lenin taking the decision in question like this (although he was certainly influencial within the organization).
8: The alliance with KMT depended on the analysis on the role of national bourgeois in the colonies, a matter that was subject to a lot of internal debate with Comintern at the time. KMT had armed forces at the time, but the support to KMT is not analogous to the positions of Comintern towards uprisings in Europe.
--Soman 21:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
3-4. The book certainly mentions many times that these parties controlled by Moscow had, or at least were supposed to have, armed military organiztions ready for an armed overthrow.
5. My brief paragraph is not long.
6. Well, then add that sourced material if you can find a good source. That is no reason for excluding other material.
7. I refer to the quote or to other statements in the chapter stating that these parties were controlled by Moscow. That is a view. If you disagree, add another, quoting a source.
8. I see no problem with adding this if having a source.Ultramarine 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


An anonymous editor inserted that among the invitees to the First Congress were "Canada CCF and later the NDP led by Thomas Douglas". I don't think this is true, as the CCF was not formed until the 1930s. Have deleted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, clearly. Carrite (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


In the Founding section there is a list of parties that were invited and then a list of those who attended. I think it would look more neat and easier to read if those lists were merged by adding whether or not a party representative attended after the name of the party on the first list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killer4o (talkcontribs) 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Some deficiencies as I see them[edit]

1. The Introductory section is much too long and runs far afield of the main subject. The 1905 revolution has nothing to do with the establishment of the Comintern. The collapse of the 2nd International in WWI and the Zimmerwald Left movement is on target. A cleaver needs to be wielded and everything north of the WWI passage should be cut. The WWI/Zimmerwald section would then have room for expansion. This change needs to be made very soon, I think.

2. The lengthy list of invitees, while potentially useful, feels cumbersome. I would suggest that there needs to be a full page about each Congress (and Expanded ECCI Plenum) written where people could go if they really need information of that depth. This change can wait a while, I think.

3. The COMMUNISM and SOCIALISM portals are mickey mouse. That stuff should be a footer if it is there at all. There need to be LOTS more interesting graphics added and to get these altogether useless, cheesy, and cumbersome portals the heck out of here.

4. I really hate the presentation lumping everything "from the 5th to the 7th World Congresses" into one section and then splitting it according to the two theoretical periods of development of world capitalism. This is artificial at best. There is a real periodization that needs to be made here, but that's not it. Just using the various World Congresses as headers would help move the story along coherently. This is not to say the "Third Period" shouldn't be discussed — it definitely should. But the way things sit, it sort of resembles a big, unwieldy junk drawer.

5. I like the list of "sponsored organizations" and would suggest that stuff be broken out in a little more detail as a full section right after "Dissolution."

6. Why does the Communist Party of China merit specific inclusion? Obviously it is hugely important as part of the story, but the way things sit, this feels like a huge digression and really ruins the flow of the article. This information should be integrated into the main chronological story and maybe someone should write an independent-and-linked WP article on "The Comintern and the CCP."

7. The SEE ALSO list is way too long.

I'm sure there are a couple other things, but those strike me as the most glaring. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of just bitching about it, I went with BE BOLD. I think it reads better. I added a (placeholder, short) paragraph on the impact of the Russian Revolution, which was equally decisive to WWI in the formation of the CI. This whole top has room to be expanded now. Discussion of the 1st and 2nd International histories, the 1905 revolution, the history development of revisionism — all sort of non-germane. Interesting topics in their own right, but digressions from the story here. This whole article needs more meat, but I think there is something that resembles a straight skeleton for it now. I'd still like to see the China stuff integrated and that whole section kicked out, but that's more time than I have this evening. Please consider this carefully before you revert. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

proposed addition to the introductory section[edit]

To be added to the end of the first paragraph, "In practice, the Comintern was controlled by the Soviet Union."

Any objections? TMLutas (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Half a month's enough to wait, doing the edit as above. TMLutas (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This a re-run of an earlier discussion (see "Alleged Independence" above). It is highy problematic to bluntly state that "Comintern was controlled by the Soviet Union", as the Soviet Union was not a monolithic entity. Was it the Soviet state that ran Comintern or was it the Soviet communist party (i.e. AUCP(b)) that dominated it? --Soman (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion you refer to concludes in supporting my position, not yours. Care to try again? Your reliance on a public speech by Lenin for the actual state of affairs on anything is eyebrow raising. Lenin lied in public, a lot, as became clear once his private papers were finally released. If you wish to enter into the detail of which part of the USSR's power elite was most directly in control of it, I would suggest that this would be more appropriate for follow through text later the article. To seek to do it in the opening paragraphs is too much detail at that point in the article. We can discuss that in another edit. Let's focus on this one. TMLutas (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that was not the conclusion of the discussion above. Secondly, you are misinterpreting my own comment in said discussion. Thirdly, it´s not workable to introduce a faulty sentence in the lead, only to have it problematized further down in the article. --Soman (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that the Asmillar 20:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC) comment is the conclusion of the 2006 discussion? I can't see how you get Comintern independence from Asmiller's statement. For the vast majority of its existence (that being its existence under Stalin) it was a Soviet creature. You can quibble about this or that action at the margins but overall it was simply not independent depending on funding from the Soviets and personnel that were ethnically russian. The complaints of non-soviet communists that the comintern was just an arm of soviet foreign policy also should weigh heavily. Asmiller makes my case much better than I have. In the broad strokes section, the introduction, this subordination should be stated clearly, with nuance applied later on explaining the exceptions to the rule and the detail of how the rule worked out (your question of which part of the USSR ran the thing). These are later edits. TMLutas (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No, we don't agree on how to interpret Asmillar's comment. It does not support you passage of "In practice,...". Moreover, if Asmillar's comment would be copied into the article, it would need a reference. What is important that the article gives an accurate picture of the different stages of the development of Comintern. The latter period of existence of Comintern was not its "vast majority", the period of 1919-1928 is hardly irrelevant. As per the staffing of Comintern, I don't have the exact statistics of the ethnic composition of the staff at the central office of Comintern (although Victor Serge's memoirs indicated that he might have been the sole ethnic Russian in the original Comintern staff). But Comintern was not merely a house full of telephones. The international network of envoys of Comintern around the world was largely staffed by non-Soviets. --Soman (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice dodge and weave there as you did not answer the first question (first sentence of my prior comment) but rather a question that I had not asked. You're throwing up straw men as nobody has suggested putting in Asmillar's comment in to the article except you. You brought up the earlier discussion which ends up not supporting you. That's funny, and sad. If you want to support alternate text along the lines that the Cominterm soon fell under Soviet control I'm willing to compromise on that but you aren't suggesting anything constructive, just trying to tear down my contribution, and doing it badly. Give me something to work with here. The subject of who controlled the Cominterm is worth mentioning up top. TMLutas (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Look, Wikipedia editing is not necessarily meeting half-way by the centimetre. You want to insert an unsourced and directly misleading sentence in the lead, I prefer excluding it. If you still want to include it, it is your task to come up with a rationale for its inclusion. I'm ok with the lead being the way it is for now, although the text is by no means perfect (it generally lacks any reasonable description of the actual role the organization played). --Soman (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
What a surprise. You want your supported text to stay as it is and leave the subject of the practical control of the organization tastefully undiscussed in the opening paragraphs. You claim you don't like the text but you don't actually promote a change to improve the text. The problem is that an independent international organization of world communists is a fundamentally different thing than a Soviet puppet group. You say my assertion is unsourced. That's why there's a source tag. You should have used that instead of reverting. Had you marked my addition as unsourced and waited a bit, I'd be happy to source it for you. Here you go: or if you like things Britannica:
Now that it's sourced, I look forward to your alternate proposals for constructive change. TMLutas (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, concerning the "Founding Congress" block, a few things seem to be left out. For example, it's noted that Rutgers attended, but left out is that he was supposedly representing the Japanese communists (he once spent a few months there, that's all.) In fact, only a few of the attendees were elected delegates authorized to attend, yet the way this block is written and sourced, it makes it appear as some widespread and well backed initiative, when in fact it was more a political show by Lenin. Even Angelica Balabanoff felt "there was a make believe side to the whole affair." Lenin tried to get her to claim she was representing the Italian Socialist Party, which she declined to do. I'm certain the Third Internationale has some significance to some people, but what is what is nowhere near what is represented in this article. I'd appreciate some feedback on this before I make changes, thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Fourth Congress[edit]

Was there ever a section on the Fourth Congress? It's a strange ommission. Has it been deleted by mistake? --Duncan (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Communist International. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Third (Communist) InternationalThird International – I would also be okay with moving it back to Comintern, but the current title simply doesn't work. Charles Essie (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd be okay with that also. Charles Essie (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I support "Communist International" Rjensen (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The list of invited parties is propaganda[edit]

The list of participants and numbers of voices are much more informative.Xx236 (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC) Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Communist International. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


Was the Comintern an "international communist organization", or a Soviet organization?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Soviet.Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
former. Stalin controlled both but did so separately. -- apart from Stalin USSR government officials did not have a role. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
"Stalin controlled" since a certain year (after Lenin's death), first collective later individual.
Stalin's power was probably the same in the SU and International.Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)