Talk:Communist Party of Austria

Untitled

Copyedit comments March 2nd 2006.

Great article, fascinating reading and hardly a typo in there. Couple of more general comments:

1. The first coup d'etat which is discussed is not linked (in the text) to the communist party. By inference I assumed that it should be, but I think it ought to be made clear.

2. The article lacks a human aspect. The list of leaders is good to have, but since it appears at the very end it is too late for those reading it and wondering who are the personalities involved. There is one clear example of this, where the article states that "the party moved in a more authoritarian direction" - but since the reader does not know who is in charge of the party, it is hard to understand who and why this is occuring (now having read the entire thing I know that "Koplenig" was in charge and worked with Stalin - so the information is present, but not presented at the right moment).

Neutrality in dispute

This article does not seem very neutral, especially with the following statement: "Why was Austria spared the fate of a complete communist dictatorship unlike its neighbouring countries or even state division as in Germany?" This is one example of non-neutrality in this article. Perhaps the author can fix it up? Warren85 02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, perhaps Austria was spared the fate of a communist dictatorship (as in the Eastern Bloc) because of the presence of the United States Army and of the British Army, which prevented the Red Army from taking over, and imposing a Soviet-style system? Moreover, Austria had the good sense to accept the Marshall Plan offer (leading to the Wirtschaftswunder), whereas the other Eastern Bloc countries, under Soviet pressure, refused this generous offer. On the other hand, to quote from the article, "During the years of the national reconstruction, the KPÖ vehemently criticised the "capitalistic reconstruction at the expense of the working class" and totally rejected the Marshall Plan." At any rate, the Soviets decided to leave Austria in 1955, and that was that. As the article says, "Because of the economic recovery and the end of the occupation in 1955, the protective power of the Soviet occupiers was lost to the KPÖ. The party lost a main pillar of support and was shaken by internal crisis." I hope that clears that. Can we take down the POV tag now? Turgidson 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't agree with the term "communist dictatorship". That is not neutral language. Some people consider a communist state democratic, others consider it a dictatorship. A better term would be to say "Why did Austria not become a communist state?" rather than communist dictatorship. That is what I was referring to when I said this article was not neutral. Warren85 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. But the question is not whether "some people consider a communist state democratic" (I guess there could be such people, who knows), but rather, is there a verifiable source that makes the case that there has been a "democratic Communist State" in history? Or, more specifically, any source that gives any indication that, if the Communist Party of Austria had come to power, say, in the late 1940s, it would have followed a path any different from the one followed by the Communist dictatorships in the Eastern Bloc, up to at least 1956 (and, in most cases, for much longer)? Turgidson 19:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KPÖ 2005.JPG

Image:KPÖ 2005.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kpö.jpg

Image:Kpö.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Politics

There are no references for considering KPO "Far-left", the first link is broken and the second one only establish a list of communist parties. I think it's more accurate to consider it as "Left-wing" or "Radical-Left", like other similar parties as PCE, with an eurocommunist root and an institutional understanding of politics. 37.134.251.97 (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

1918 "Coup d'etat"

Several parts of this article seem severly biased or simply unknowledgable about the History. Specifically this part: "On 12 November 1918, the party attempted a coup d'état, which was not professionally organised and not authorised by the Soviet government. Within hours, the coup attempt was defeated"

Apart from writing this paragraph in a way suggesting that the 1 year old Russian Communist movement in the middle of a civil war had any kind of greater influence upon european leftist movements, its just factually wrong.

Theres no evidence that this was in any way a coup attempt OR organized by the party. November 12th 1918 was the first parliamentary session of the newly founded Republic, on which occasion the Red Guard held a rally before the Parliament. Hearing noises that sounded like machine gun fire, someone unidentified fired at the parliament, agitated several hundred Guards tried entering the Parliament, yet the Guards accepted the explanation of the supposed machine gun shots being the sounds of construction work and left. 41.66.99.129 (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'm afraid 'Johan Spricht' and 'Veer Sachai' are just made up names. I really wished one of the spokespersons of the KPÖ translated into 'Johan speaks', but I think its just a joke there 2A02:908:E855:AA00:0:0:0:3AF3 (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)