Talk:World Communist Movement

This article was nominated for deletion on {{{date}}}. The result of the discussion was Merge to History of Communism.

i don't see whats the problem with the list. It is not arbitrary but factually important. The character of each party is discussed in the different articles linked, and i think that quite a good base for the list as such. --Soman 12:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be an actual article about the contemporary World Communist Movement, and for the most part, with the exception of the very beginning, it isn't. Most of the article basically goes into the history of the world communist movement through the 20th century by listing (that's one big "ugh" factor right there) the relevant parties by decade. When you compare a format like that to the format of an actual encyclopedia article, the format pretty much all other major communism topics listed in the Communism box take, who can help but have a problem with how it's arranged? Originally, I was going to put a request for a complete rewrite of the whole thing, but that's not what this needs-- it just needs a whole hell of a lot of rearrangement, plus a lot of de-list-ifying. As it stands now, it's just so dry the way it is. And unclear/ambiguous, too. 71.125.169.243 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the current world communist movement cannot be explained without its historical backdrop. Secondly, I don't see the point with a History of the Communist Movement article, wouldn't that duplicate the History of Communism article? (which at this point only focuses on communist parties in governance). Thirdly, please specify exactly what is unclear or ambigous. --Soman 16:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanation to recent edit on the article. To call WCM pro-Soviet would be factually incorrect today, as WCM still exists in the absence of the USSR. --Soman 16:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCM as entity

The World Communist Movement needs to be described as an entity if an entity is what the WCM actually is. If the WCM article is intended to give a history of the more general international communist movement, then that is the form the WCM should take instead. But as it stands now, the WCM article is a strange mixture of both, and to me, in trying to explain the broader history, it totally misses the point of the WCM as an actual coalition that holds meetings. Maybe we need an expert to work on this article, someone that actually attends WCM meetings, that can give a more comprehensive view of how the WCM in its present form has evolved. But Soman, it seems as though, at least for the time being, you are the only other person paying attention to this article besides me, and that can't be good. Other people have to be brought into this discussion and their comments seen and our ideas traded. That is the only way to move forward on this. Kiko 04:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do understand the critisisms of this article, it does deserve an existance. The contention seems to be about a definition of what the WCM is. I think that the closest thing to a concrete definition would be that: The the present day WCM consists of Communist and Workers Parties that have fraternal relations with the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), or have fraternal relations with Communist and Workers Parties that have fraternal relations with the KKE. This would include all the Parties involved with the conferences hosted over the last few years by the KKE, and Parties not involved, but supporting them. - unsigned

That is not really a correct definition. The WCM is a political community that predates the current KKE conferences. This article must deal with the historical evolution of WCM, and then the mentioning of KKE becomes wildly misleading. And even though most of the parties that can be considered as current referents of WCM participate or support the KKE-hosted conferences, but that is not an exclusive definition. --Soman 08:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is it?

Is this intended to be an overview of:

The CURRENT World Communist Movement formation, in which case there should be a history limited to that entity, its evolution, etc.;

OR,

The HISTORY of the "world communist movement" as a whole, leading up to and including the current entity-incarnation that calls itself the "World Communist Movement"?

In my eyes, this article must go in either the first direction or the second. The current format is a shoddy attempt at a middle ground between these two, and it needs major cleanup.

No, there is a direct continuation. This article is about the original modern communist movement (which originates in the ComIntern). It still exists as a political community. --Soman 18:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the justifications you've attempted to submit so far-- and with all due respect, they seem pretty weak to me-- that does not detract from the fact that the article needs a complete rewrite. Most of it reads like a list, and even the parts that don't are scattered and often ambiguous. I'm going to post this page on an appropriate Talk forum to see if we can't get other people involved in this project. 71.255.198.147 22:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this article about?=

I can't find any evidence that a body called the World Communist Movement exists. Can anyone provide some? If there is no such body, this article ought to be scrapped and redirected to History of Communism. Adam 06:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of title is of course, rather arbitrary. This is a political community, upheld through bilateral relations betweens its constituents. It is not a formalized organisation with a central body. However, it is an actual existing movement. --Soman 13:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought as much. Since there is no such organisation as the World Communist Movement, this article ought to be abolished and its contents moved to Communism or History of Communism. Adam 22:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Articles can be about movements, that are not necessarily formal organized structures. The WCM is not an all-inclusive entity, its a community encompassing the mainstream of the communist parties around the world. For me that the following definition holds: 'A community of political parties, which developed out of ComIntern, upheld relations with CPSU during the Cold War, participated (either themselves or through fronts) in Soviet-sponsored structures like WMR, WFTU, WFDY, etc., and today upholds relations on bilateral level, with the Athens conferences as an important rallying point.' --Soman 07:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about the world Communist movement, which came into existence in 1917 and is maintained by the remaining CPs such as the KKE, PCF and JCP. The history of that movement belongs at History of Communism. There is no such organisation as the World Communist Movement (with capital letters), so there should not be an article suggesting that such an organisation exists. Since you won't let me redirect this article I will now propose it for deletion. Adam 14:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contantz edit

This article deals with the WCM. None of the passages Contantz mentions do.

Communist governance is not dealt here, but in Communist states
Sendero Luminoso is definately outside of WCM, so is KR.

--Soman 16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The results must be discussed; as great Lenin taught us: the criteria for truth is the praxis.--Constanz - Talk 16:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]