Talk:Japanese Communist Party

POV assertions

The history section refers to "Stalinism" (a problematic term in and of itself) as a "non-Marxist ideology". This is Trotskyist, liberal, or "classical Marxist" POV. Most communists (or at least those who can be differentiated from social-democrats) uphold the experience of the Stalin era as a flawed but legitimate example of socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.94.3 (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Lam Peng Er

Although I'm not an expert on Japanese Communists I don't see why it is necessary to devote almost half the history section to Lam Peng Er's view of the JCP written 10 years ago. I seriously doubt that his view is a universal one and therefore either this section should be dropped or an opposite view presented.

Andrés Böðvarsson, Iceland--85.197.246.71 16:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That section seems to have been trimmed to about a quarter of the history section now. I rather like it the way it is, it adds different perspective on the JCP. If we can find some kind of counterpoint we can sure go about putting it in there. Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Formulations such as "overcomes capitalism" and "steers Japan towards democracy and peace" are POV. So is talk about "struggling against imperialism and its subordinate ally, monopoly capital." This is communist rethoric not the description of a political party.

• I think such formulations are justified if this is the way a party veiws itself , after all it can have a POV of itself . If this wording is a direct translation of a quote from its own material or if the original author is a member of the party (who else would talk in such a way) then I believe it has a right to be here as long as the passages used are put in quotation marks and the proviso , "in its own words is made" .(Cetot 06:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

• I remember the Japanese Communist Party sending political speech trucks into the streets to PROTEST a Koizumi tax raise in `03! Times have changedstruggle 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

INCORRECT INFO ON JCP AND NORTH KOREA Twice I have edited by noting that the information on the JCP previously being a pro-North Koren party is wrong. It is the Japan Socialist Party (now Social Democratic Party of Japan) that was close to North Korea and has only recently changed over the abduction issue preinciapply.

(More specifically, one wing of the Socialist party; another wingwas behind a marriage of convenience with the rightist Liberal Democratic Party at one point about 15 years ago)

The JCP has long been on the outs with North Korea, not only recenly over the abductions. For whatever reason, someone keeps erasing this correction.

You can read Fuwa's remarks, which trace the animousity between the two to 1968 at least! http://www.solidnet.org/cgi-bin/agent?parties/0470=japan,_japanese_communist_party/980japanjan04.doc

I am the editor of tokyoprogressive and a co-eitor of Japan Indymedia. Twice my edits were erased.

http://tokyoprogressive.org http://japan.indymedia.org

Another Japanese Communist Party

I know there is another Japanese Communist Party. Its an Maoist Party... It Party have any web page, but I dont remember the direction. Anyone knows something about it? I think would be any link to this page...

Try to find it here:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Communist_parties_in_Asia

FYI: JCP looks awesome!

-G

Some thoughts about the JCP

I spent four months in Japan in 1980, and had much contact with the JCP.

The idea that the JCP is pro-North Korea would come from its (formerly?) close relations with Choosen Sooren, then the main representative group of Korean residents in Japan. Choosen Sooren is pro-North Korea. I was once inside its Osaka HQ, so can attest to that!

At JCP rallies the representative of Choosen Sooren was always the first dignitary to be introduced. This seems to have been a strict rule of the JCP. This may have been partly to keep Choosen Sooren from going off the rails completely, and partly as a mark of respect to the Koreans in Japan. I don't think it proves that the JCP was truly pro-North Korea, but its hard to say. At that time South Korea was in the grip of an extremely violent military dictatorship.

Recently I have read much about the reasons for China's support of North Korea's aggression in 1950.

At that time Korea must have been quite strong as an industrial power, as it had been built up by the Japanese and had suffered little from the war. I think that Mao Zedong wished to smash Korea and ensure that it remained divided. This view is nothing new.

However, I think there was another reason. It's pretty obvious that war in Korea would lead the US occupation authorities immediately to smash the JCP. The JCP was Mao's chief ideological competitor, and I think this was a major reason why he supported that terrible war. I wonder whether this thought ever occurred to the JCP--that they were being deliberately targeted by the Chinese Communists, or at least by Mao. It's typical of the sort of thing he would have done, but it appears that he never discussed it with any of his colleagues. The smashing of the JCP would have been entirely obvious to Mao.Luo Shanlian (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Move of this page

MidasHotel20, I am curious as to your rationale for moving this page from Japanese Communist Party. The party clearly refers to itself as the JCP, as does mainstream media (The Economist, Time, the Wall St Journal and the Japan Times) and Encyclopedia Brittanica. Is there a particular reason you made this move? You didn't mention one in the edit summary, and you haven't done anything to change the lead of the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It has been more than a week so I have moved it back. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Left or Far-left?

Helper201, I have noticed that you reverted an IP's recent change to the party's description with the comment "This has been discussed many times before..." I can't find any discussion in the history of this page, so perhaps it is worth starting a discussion. This recent article (currently used as footnote #19) describes the party as having some "extreme leftist policies". But by softening their attitude towards working with other opposition parties, I suppose you could say that it shows they are not that extreme. Right now I don't have a position on which I think it should be, but it is something worth discussing on the article's talk page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussions I was referring to were via edits over many months so its understandable if you cannot find them. The article you are referring to is saying that Okada views some of the JCP's policies to be extreme, however this is purely his opinion and as such is not fact. As can be seen on the JCP's page the party very strictly adheres to working and maintaining democracy and isn't interested in any sort of one-party, Marxist-Leninist style government; the party has been very critical of governments that have adopted this, such as when Russia was a one-party state. The party is also strictly pacifist and Communism in of itself is not a far-left ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helper201 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, forgive me for moving your comment into the correct order. I tend to agree with you, in that the party as a whole is not that extreme, e.g. they are willing to work with other parties. It is also true that Okada's comments are only his opinion. But that must be countered with the fact that there is certainly an element of truth to his opinion; he would not have said it at the same time as entering an agreement with the JCP if it was false. In any event, these sorts of discussions should happen here on the talk page; back and forth via edit summaries is not really a discussion. Over time other contributors can add as they wish. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Still some proletarian membership/electorate ?

Sorry, this is just a suggestion from an interested reader. I'm wondering from what social background the JCP members and voters come. Is there still a traditionally left (working-class) following? (Maybe also some associated unions?) Or is it rather a young well-educated, intellectual following (like with many leftist groups in the west, I'd say)? Possibly a brief indication in the article would do. Probably this author Lam Peng Er has something to say about it(?). 82.55.206.173 (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your comment. Not sure about the social background of JCP members but from what I have heard the party has a large union backing, especially from the teachers union. It does also have a lot of what many people would refer to as intellectual members. I believe this YouTube video should be helpful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKczRC4df6A

I think 4:30 onward is particularly relevant to what you want to know.

If anyone else has anything to add to this I'd very much like to hear it too. It would be good to have it added to the page too but I don't know any relevant citations for this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helper201 (talk • contribs)02:27, 16 August 2016‎

Thank you. I looked at the video. I also read ref. 3 (of the article), a text by an American Professor (Peter Berton) which I found interesting. My impression is that the party is rather elitist, not working-class. And also not closely linked to unions. It seems the (solid) financing comes from their newspaper (and other publications). Also I guess that the party really is more social democratic than communist (as mentioned in the video). When you are kept from power, it's easy to profess to stick to your original principles, even though you aren't really serious about them anymore. Also the following of many teachers sounds like a western social democratic party (like in Switzerland where the typical following are teachers and also other state employees, definitely not craftsmen and workers...). Would be nice if someone could add something to the article, although with such valutations it's difficult, and I definitely don't know enough about it. Greetings, 82.51.63.118 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the 'communist parties' box and communism portal

So I have twice tried to remove these links and given reason for doing so, only to be reverted with no counter reasoning. My reasoning is as follows. There is no cited evidence given on this page that in the 21st century the party still advocates the ideology of communism. While still being called the 'Japanese Communist Party', if the party no longer advocates the actual ideology of communism it is misrepresentative to lump it together with other communist parties that do still advocate this ideology (as it may imply to some that this party does also advocate this ideology). As further evidence of the party distancing itself from other communist parties, it can be seen that the party has not attended the International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties since 1998 (before its current leader, Kazuo Shii, even lead the party) and the party also do not attend the International Communist Seminar. As with many aspects of Japan, its politics and the way they operate are very different to the rest of the world and in many ways its communist party is and has been quite different from many other communist parties, to assume it to be akin to most other communist parties is quite ignorant. Helper201 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese Communist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110090834/http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140107p2a00m0na015000c.html to http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20140107p2a00m0na015000c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Were they ever Marxist-Leninist?

Just curious, the article kind of implies it here and several other places: "During the 1980s, however, party membership began to decline, falling to 370,000 by 1997.[6] Owing to a significant loss in electoral support, the party revised its policies in the 1990s and became a more traditional democratic socialist party.[8]"

However, it is not entirely clear and I'm only finding other parties when I search JCP ML (and related searches). Thank you. 69.120.198.52 (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

English variation

@Helper201: You reverted my revert of my contradiction of MOS:RETAIN.

• Me changing everything to British English
• Oops, most spellings were in American English, better change it back!

We don't disagree on anything. Yue🌙 07:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So would you mind reverting your revert of my revert of my bad edit? Cheers. Yue🌙 07:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yue Thanks for taking this here. How about we just go back to the original mix that it was? I don't think it’s necessary to make everything one English variant or another when we're talking about a subject not related to a English-speaking country. The mix in this content better reflects the global audience that will view the article and it has no ties to either American, British or any other English variant, so placing it all in one seems unnecessary to me. The prior mix is/was also what the long-standing consensus has been. Helper201 (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Helper201: I wouldn't call three British variants and three dozen American variants a "mix"; my intention was to keep the variants consistent with one format. The consistent usage was American English, and it should be American English. Having a mix contradicts MOS:RETAIN:

• "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article ..." — Nobody added a maintenance tag until I did, but most of the variant spellings in the article were in American English.
• "When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety." — We are of course still discussing, but it's a hard sell to claim that American English wasn't the identifiable variety throughout the article before I did the variant edits.

Yue🌙 08:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with user Yue. This page has been in standard American English forever, so MOS:RETAIN favors that. More importantly, American English is by far the most commonly used English in Japan today, and has been ever since the Occupation of Japan, so it makes sense to favor American English on pages about Japan.

--Ash-Gaar (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Organizations of the Korean independence movement

Thought it would be worthwhile to explain myself further. Bottom line is, there is no reliable source that describes the Japanese Communist Party as a part of the Korean independence movement because an organisation giving a political movement support (material support, a platform, support on paper, etc.) does not make the organisation a part of the movement. To put into perspective, the Soviet Union (or the CPSU) was not a part of the Korean independence movement because it supported Kim Il Sung's guerrillas materially and diplomatically. And of course, neither the Soviet Union nor the Japanese Communist Party have made (or would make) a claim to a legacy that is not theirs. Yue🌙 05:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"Declining membership numbers" is verified in this article

In further support of Ash-Gaar's comments in this revert, I would like to point out that this article indeed states in the Membership section that membership numbers are declining and this claim is reliably sourced in the article body. Yue🌙 17:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Yue this would fall under WP:SYNTH. In order to state that the party's membership has declined a source should be provided that explicitly says as such. Combining other cited elements or data points to come to this conclusion violates the synth guideline. Helper201 (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201: The scenario made up by the anonymous editor would be WP:SYNTH, yes. The source you are looking for is already cited in the article. The JCP's decline has been well-established in this article for a long time. The anonymous editor evidently made their claim without reading the article body nor checking if the citations in the article body verified the claim of declining membership, which they do.

共産党 党員減少進む中 女性初の委員長で党勢回復できるか課題 [As the Communist Party's membership continues to decline, can the first female chairperson help restore the party's strength?]. NHK. 19 January 2024. ただ、共産党の党員数は、最も多かった1990年のおよそ50万人から25万人程度に半減し、高齢化も指摘されていて、国政選挙では議席が減少傾向にあります。

Yue🌙 01:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Synth

Cdjp1 this source - - is WP:SYNTH when used to state that the party has a Marxist ideology. The source does not explicitly state this. To quote the synth guideline - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Marx and Engles had many theories on future society, you're implying that this is a direct reference to Marxism. Whether it is or not is irrelevant given the source breaks the synth guideline which states this must be stated explicitly, of which the source given does not do. If it’s not explicitly stated by the source, its synth. Also, I'd appreciate that you please not enage in personal attacks, as you did in your edit description here. Helper201 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This entire debate is absurd. The Japanese Communist Party is clearly Marxist. It's literally a communist party. The history of the JCP is riddled with endless debates over the exact nature of Marx's theories. You are engaging in idle sophistry here. Please desist. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201 The source is not SYNTH, and you have shown a repeated inability to comprehend the text. It's a simple case. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ash-Gaar it’s not a case of whether or not the party is or isn't Marxist, its whether or not the source in question complies with Wikipedia guidelines. As for Cdjp1, I don't know how such a response is meant to be helpful or constructive. It’s actually very simple that the source does not explicitly claim what you are saying it does. Show me a quote from the source where it explicitly states that the party has a Marxist ideology and it will be fine. Comprehending the source is just basically you interpreting the source, since it doesn't explicitly call the party's ideology Marxist, and thus violates synth, that is what is simple. Helper201 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

And yet you were repeatedly deleting "Marxism" from the ideology section. If it was really just about questioning a specific source, you should not have been deleting information. You also claim here on the talk page that the Japan Communist Party is not even communist. You seem to have a long history of making tendentious edits to this page that border on vandalism, while using rules lawyering about sources as a thinly veiled excuse. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No, that's not the case. I'm a long-time Wikipedia editor stretching over 9 years with over 80,000 edits. I have no business with vandalism. I'm not denying the party is communist or Marxist. I questioned the party's advocacy for the ideology of communism in the 21st century circa 7 years ago due to a lack of sources explicitly stating as such. Just because parties have a particular ideology in their name doesn't mean they adhere to said ideology in the modern day. Take the Social Democratic Party (Portugal) for example, which doesn't adhere to social democracy.

You'll see that once the second source was added for Marxism that complies with synth I didn't remove Marxism once that source was added, I then only removed the source that didn't comply with synth, while leaving Marxism in the infobox. I only intend to improve the quality of this page and the others I edit. I ask that you please assume good faith, as I'm trying to adhere towards other editors. Hence my decision to try and reach a conclusion to this matter via the talk page. Helper201 (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, understood, and thank you for the clarification. In future cases, it would be best practice to simply add a "citation needed" tag before deleting information. A lack of a source citations in an otherwise well-cited article should not result in immediately deleting information before giving a chance for citations to be found, unless the editor has specific reason to believe the information is erroneous. -- Ash-Gaar (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, please be reminded that the talk page should be your first resource, prior to engaging in an edit war, rather than your last resort after an extensive edit war that takes up everyone's time. Following long established Wikipedia norms will make it much easier for other users to assume good faith on your part. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)