Talk:Eurocommunism

"More rhythmic criticisms of Euro Communism were presented by the poet John Cooper Clarke, in 'Euro Communist/Gucci Socialist.'"
Is that a joke?

166.216.128.75 (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"while smaller and more marginal parties (such as the Communist Party of Great Britain) remained correspondingly more dependent upon the patronage of Moscow"

What utter nonsense! The CPGB was firmly Eurocommunist in the 1970s, constantly distancing itself from the Soviet Union on a raft of issues -- such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the treatment of dissidents in the USSR.

You can make any change you want to the article. --Juliet.p 08:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

more references
for a long time i have been an avid student of politics. by chance, when reading the history of the indonesian communist party i came across a link to "eurocommunism".....

more references than this mandel person!

This article suggests an anti-Eurommunist POV
A statement like "It was those Communist parties most strongly entrenched in their respective societies — notably the Italian Communist Party and the French Communist Party — that adopted a Eurocommunist line" is clearly mistaken: the Russian and Chinese CPs also had mass roots. This entry fails to explain what Eurocommunism was in the words of its supporters. --Duncan 13:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose the intention is the compare different West European CPs, not CPs internationally. Lets say compare why PCI adopted eurocommunism whilst the Communist Party of Denmark did not. Still the comparison failed, as several of the smaller European CPs were sympathic towards Eurocommunism. Rather it was parties like PCI that came to play the leading role in Eurocommunism, for reasons obvious. --Soman 13:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think the suggestion is a little deeper -- to suggest a causal link between the social weight of these parties and their political collapse. I think this is weak, and mistake. There's a serious discussion there about how Lenin argued that Bolshevism needed to be adapted to Western Europe, to Gramsci and to Togliatti. This post simple suggests that it's about adapting to the middle class, which is useless. --Duncan 16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I still think there are serious POV issued with the article. Even the opening claim that Eurocommunism is revisionist is not NPOV. --Duncan (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

PCF
The relation of PCF with Eurocommunism is more complicated than both of these versions porttray. PCF vacilliated towards Eurocommunism, first welcoming it, then rejecting it and then again approaching it. --Soman 11:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure but it seems to me that my version states the main point: they have always followed the USSR communist party when it existed (and also have always accepted their money - this is today fully documented). Alain10 13:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is a difference. Namely, that PCF did participate in formulations of eurocommunist standpoints in the 1970s, but backtracked in the 1980s. --Soman 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced. They accepted for a time the eurocommunist concept for propaganda reason but soon, after it began to mean independance from USSR, they refused it Alain10 17:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Does this article follow NPOV policy?
There are several objections that I'd like to talk about. The reason I'm not editing right away is because I'm not very familiar with eurocommunism specifically and more with Warchau-pact history, so I could be mistaken. Anyway, I'll post the objections in the order the text appears in the article.


 * Eurocommunism is classified as an attempt to develop a theory. If it was an attempt, why would it be in the encyclopedia as such a thorough article? Should be 'a new movement within european communist parties in the (early) 1970s' or similar.


 * "possibilist" is not a word. maybe pragmatic?


 * "But Eurocommunism was in many ways only a staging post." and "others, like the Dutch, toyed with green politics" are not examples of encyclopedia-worthy information, somewhat biased in language and more importantly I think, unclear in what it means.


 * much use of generalisations, "right-wing critics"; "most revolutionary left-wing movements", etc. without citation.

Buddelmeijer 10:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Taistolaiset
Claim "What was peculiar was that the Youth was nearly compltely Taistolaist" is totally unsubstiated and no scholar of the era would support this --State of clarity (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Cold War template
The template doesn't really make sense in that Eurocommunism is listed with Marxist-Leninist movements on the "same side", when in reality Eurocommunism is (like Hoxha said) anti-communism. The main historical role of Eurocommunism is to condemn the actions of socialist states and move the focus of Communist Parties away from proletarian class politics into bourgeois distractions such as ecology/feminism/homosexual "rights", etc... ie - the same policies as Anglo-American liberalism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is an NPOV view. Marxism-Leninism is the political tradition associated with the Communist parties after Lenin, not only the Maoist parties. --Duncan (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Independence or "independence"?
Hi, why is that word, at the end of the first para after the lead, in quotation marks? They make it look like the claim is made ironically, as a joke, or in bad faith. I suggest removing them, or completing the statement with the full quote from the source. T 88.89.217.49 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

War

 * With war less likely, Western communists were under less pressure to follow Soviet orthodoxy

Why was that? That doesn't make any sense to me?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

"Neo-communism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neo-communism&redirect=no Neo-communism] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Problems with tone and neutrality
Essentially this entire article is written in a non-encyclopedic tone: instead of simply reporting already published facts, the wiki editors have very frequently included their own opinions. One method of inserting personal opinion is to use words that express surprise, encouragement, disappointment, and so on. These (and all other possible methods of commenting on the facts) need to be removed.

It is also still necessary to remove all statements that cannot be proved by showing the reliable published source that they come from. Personal knowledge (for example "I know this is true because I was actually there when it happened") must all be erased from the article. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific or just remove / change the problematic phrases / sentences yourself? Yue 🌙 17:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it would probably involve removing a great deal of questionable content, not just phrases here and there.
 * Perhaps I should have described my complaint differently, though I'm still not certain if my new description is correct: it seems to me that the article (or at least large chunks of it) may be constructed as a story, in which the documented published facts are serving as mere plot points, and the Wikipedia author (yes, "author" as opposed to "editor") has inappropriately taken on the task of making assumptions about people's motives and purposes, and about relationships between the actual events, thereby inventing a personal cause-and-effect narrative to tie the facts together.
 * In other words, the potential for WP:SYNTH on a massive scale.
 * It is certainly possible that my complaint IS a minor one that can be solved by removing just a phrase here and there, and that my suspicion of WP:SYNTH is wrong, but I am not familiar enough with this topic to sort the facts from the assumptions; the writing style leads me to suspect that the problem might be quite widespread. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another way to get something like I described is if this article is written with the intent of giving a fuller explanation, by someone who experienced much of this history firsthand.
 * If an article about some complex mechanical device (an uncontroversial one, for example not a high-tech weapon) is edited with more detailed and accurate information by someone with firsthand knowledge, I am inclined to think that ought to be acceptable, even though technically it's original research. But when the topic is politics, I think a higher standard for impartial editing is necessary. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)