Talk:National communism

[Untitled]

Please discuss changes here. This is not original research, reference was there. Paki.tv (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Precisely.Harrypotter (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party of Quebec

From looking at the page for Communist Party of Quebec, I would say this is a relevant link. It would be advisable to discuss the matter here before taking the matter further.Harrypotter (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In what sense? Is there any reference that links the present-day PCQ to the 1920s National Communist groups? --Soman (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

HI, I have relabelled the section "see also", which i hope you will accept as being more appropriate. Please read the page again: the issue is that CPQ is accusing the CPC of national chauvinism, and defends the independence Quebec, even in the unlikely events of a Bolshevik coup in Canada. Do you think that National Bolshevism should also be under the see also heading?Harrypotter (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue against both inclusions in "see also". 1) National Bolshevism is similar to "National Communism" in name only. 2) There are many contemporary cases were there are disagreements between different communist groups regarding national projects (there are plenty of groups in Spain, for example, that oppose the main PCE). This is however actually rather different from the national question in the breakup of the Russian empire. Canadian-Quebois relations are very different from, say, Russian-Turkestani relations 85 years ago. Simply having disagreements between CPC and PCQ does not create an organic link to the National Communism of the days of the October revolution. --Soman (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you make some good points.However I feel as regards the similarity of National Bolshevism to National Communism being in name only, this is why the "See also" section can help the querent find the information they are looking for. The other more general point would suggest that a page entitled Communism and nationalism. This proved useful with Anarchism and nationalism. Do you think this might be a useful way forward?Harrypotter (talk) 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Eastern Bloc

It looks like, since my last visit, this article has been doctored to exclude the most crucial aspects of "national communism" as defined by modern political science (i.e. nationalist communism yo-yoing away from the Soviet Union in Poland, Romania, Albania, Yugoslavia etc.) and focuses on obscure references to one avatar of Leninist dogma. As for the application of the term, try google books - you'll see the term used particularly (if not exclusively) for the former policy in works by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Howard Machin, Robert Bideleux, Ian Jeffries, Robert V. Daniels, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Eric D. Weitz, Chalmers A. Johnson, Henry F. Carey, Vintilă Mihăilescu, Ilia Iliev, Slobodan Naumović, etc. etc. Please, at the very least, restore the content that used to be here! Dahn (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lenin as National Communist

I have reverted the suggestion that the decision to set up the Russian Communist Party means that the Bolsheviks can be described as National Communists because this simply seems to be original research, rather than relating to any documented evidence.Leutha (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

--First "National Communists" were Russians--

Strictly speaking there could be no "national communism" before the Bolsheviks took power and declared themselves "Communists." As of that moment (march 1918) since the Russian Bolsheviks controlled only Russian territory they logically must be called "national communists." What also must be considered is that before they took power Lenin's Bolshevik Social Democrats were also quite unlike any other European SD party becuase they were RUssians. That is, their membership was overwhelming Russian and thier leaders adopted elements of Marxism in response to imperial Russian conditions that obviously were unlike coniditions in western and eastern Europe. Most significant: bank robbing to fund activities, conspiracy to avoid arrest, organization at place of work not residence, membership contingent on full time organizational/party work. The fact that almost, but not all, Anglo-American scholars because of Russocentrism or whatever ignored this point should not be an excuse to continue repeating thier error.

Firstly I would suggest that the unsigned in exotic starts an account and uses Tildes to sign comments.

Secondly I would suggest they solo ok at why the use of references is so important to provide evidence for what they say. These references can be in whatever language.

On to the content of the edits. The comments above do not stand careful scrutiny. Alexander Bogdanov, co-founder of the Bolsheviks was Bylorussian, though this had no relevance to the subsequent split between Lenin and Bogdanov. Trotsky himself was Jewish as was Rosa Luxemburg who had membership of several Social Democratic parties including the Russian SDLP. Stalin himself was, of course Georgian. It is correct to say that the RSDLP had its own characteristics, just as Austromarxism reflected the conditions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, if the RCP(b) is to be included, then we need references, otherwise the contribution will be seen as "Original Research" and removed.Leutha (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The individual ethnic identity of bolsheviks matters little if they identified with imperial russian culture, and spoke and thought in Russian, and were advocates of political economic and adminstrative centralization within the imperial Russian space centered on the old imperial capital. Stalin was born Georgian Hitler was born Austrian but they chose to identify and work within the Russian and German political sphere. ALso note that empires do not have "ethnic minorities." Indians or Africans are not called "ethnic minorities" in the British or any other empire."Ethnic minorities" in the Russian empire were Russians in the non-Russian territories, Muslims in Russian territories, and Jews --scattered in all territoies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.145 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Your comments would be easier to keep up with if you created a user account and used the four Tilden as a signature

1. One problem I have is that many of the comments above have little relationship with what actually happened. In fact the British used a complex system of scheduled castes and backward tribes as part of their system of divide and rule. It is interesting that Lenin recruited Sergey Oldenburg to the Boleshevik regime using their shared memories of Lenin's older brother to cement their relations. Perhaps you are familiar with the work of the Commission for the Study of the Tribal Composition of the Population of the Borderlands of Russia?
2. Thanks for the reference to the work of Stephen Velychenko. Certainly his new book is awaited with great interest, but unfortunately the only reference to it on the www is your addition to the article. If you have had acces to the manuscript, perhaps you could use the references that Stephen cites to show the use of "National Communism" in texts currently available.Leutha (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good Start

This entry now has a good beginning. It must be expanded next to include eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.146 (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Bibliographic references should at least be in publishers catalgue before they are listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.144 (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC) I am afraid I am unable to agree.

• The phrase "Scholars normally associated . . ." is vague and woolly
• There is undue reliance on Milovan Djilas
• "A few years earlier . . ." a reference would be useful here.
• Anton Pannekoek was no longer a social Democrat in 1920. Indeed, he was part of the Dutch Social-Democratic Party which became the Communist Party of Holland at their Leiden conference (16-17 November 1918). He remained in the party up until late 1921. He was appointed to the short-lived Amsterdam Bureau of the IIIrd International in September 1919 until its dissolution in May 1920. By August 1920 he was active in calling for ousting of the National Bolsheviks Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim at the Berlin Congress of the KAPD. It would be useful to have a reference as regards the Pannekoek quote.

I would suggest that participants have a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section, which should prove useful in guiding us to a more suitable introduction of the article.

I would suggest the following list (please add):

1. Introduction
2. Development of RCP(b) and the Third International with their policy of national sections
3. List of national communist movements active in the period 1919 - 1928(?)
4. All uses of the phrase (e.g. Trotsky 1931, Dijlas 1957)

We also need to see how it relates to National Bolshevism.

How does that sound?Leutha (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good.

Way forward

I am not sure that simply reverting other peoples contributions is a good way to take this article forward when we have the facility of a talk page on which to discuss matters. I have re-arranged the lede as discussed previously, and started a section on the Communist Manifesto. I have also included a reference to Rodinson, which I think will prove useful in highlighting an important element. I would also once more urge contributors to open an account so there contributions can be understood in a more sonsistent fashion.Leutha (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

VERY GOOD. Now we have a good entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.114 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel we have a long way to go before we can think about having a good article. As it stands, the lede is closer to Communist state. Some of these movements were more like factions, and it is somewhat contentious to talk about communism being "implemented" and although a national communist outlook maybe adopted by a leader, it is an outlook which has been adopted rather than a form of communism. This is why I feel it is better to talk about "movements" or "factions". We will also have to compare it with Proletarian nationalism.

Also we now have a number of contributions from the University of Toronto (142.150.49.114, 142.150.49.130 and 142.150.49.150). It would really be helpful if people from there logged on, making it clear whether it was the contributions of a single user, or different editors contributing their opinions. Of course, by using a pseudonym it is possible to make sure that the contributors real-world identity is not made public.Leutha (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

name

other name galiyevism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comonda2 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Difference between National Communism and National Bolshevism

Not to be confused with National Bolshevism. that is not clear to many people So... What is the differance?

In Germany these terms meant the same ideology, but in Russia not.

simplifying we can say that "National Bolshevism" is "communism + Russian nationalism"; "National Communism" is "communism + nationalism of non-Russian ethnic minorities"

SankyaF1 (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

See also:

Mikhail Agursky - The Ideology of National Bolshevism https://web.archive.org/web/20100404053643/http://nbp-info.ru/new/lib/ag_nb/

SankyaF1 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)