Communpedia talk:Sources of Information

From Communpedia
Jump to: navigation, search



seems to be a Trotskist magazine; it has a link to on its main page. They consider themselves both Marxists and Leninists. This analysis, written by "the editor of The Communist Manifesto: A Road Map to History’s Most Important Political Document" seems Marxist enough to me.

You have also applied a social democratic label to a number of other, in fact, nearly all American progressive sources; most of whom don't have that tendency. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:58, 3 January 2012 (MSK)

Generally, in the United States applying accurate tendency labels to leftist political activities is inappropriate, even red-baiting. Research has shown that "socialism" has little popular support while "progressive" has a great deal. "Little Change in Public's Response to 'Capitalism,' 'Socialism' A Political Rhetoric Test" User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:21, 3 January 2012 (MSK)
Also, you seem to have taken out Link TV which seems very valuable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:23, 3 January 2012 (MSK)
I just gave a quick look at the sites. However, the red rose is appropriate for the non-socialist progressive websites, like the article says, it is meant to represent center-leftism. Social democrats aren't socialists either. The red rose is the logo of the Socialist International which mostly includes social democratic and even some center-right parties, so I believe it is an appropriate symbol for the other 'progressive' websites. But feel free to change it if you want. And can you give me an example link to good leftist material from LinkTV? Thanks --—
Error creating thumbnail: File missing
xXPowerMexicoXx (Talk) 05:33, 5 January 2012 (MSK)
Link TV hosts Democracy Now! on DirecTV I'll think about how to categorize sources, but you have to realize that in the United States, no one is a communist. The last communist in Colorado, Jim Fowler, died of old age some years ago. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:08, 5 January 2012 (MSK)
Another is Current TV see this on Occupy Wall Street. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:35, 5 January 2012 (MSK)

I guess my problems with the social democratic rose is that social democrats are self-consciously Marxists while liberals are usually not. Socialism, particularly the British Labour Party has independent origins and traditions. Not sure what a good progressive symbol would be. User:Fred Bauder Talk 06:19, 6 January 2012 (MSK)

  • ISR is an organ of the International Socialist Organization, I believe, and is Trotskyist — to the right of the Sparts and to the left of the SPUSA. Rather than attempting to parse the political line of everything a simple dichotomy of "Marxist" and "Non-Marxist" would be the most simple and accurate. Marxism is a very broad tent — "from Victor Berger to Pol Pot," as I like to say. Listing Soviet-published sources as inherently preferable is tendentious, at best. Some are excellent, some are downright fabrications. Context is everything — the USSR was dynamic, not static. My two cents. Carrite 04:52, 24 March 2013 (GMT)
USSR was dynamic of course, but this "dynamism" had very weak influence on the marxist-leninist ideology (with the exception of single Khrushchev's revisionist theses like "cult of personality" (1956), "state of all people" (1961), "peaceful coexistence" (1962), but this is mostly unimportant at present time). And so all Soviet sources, published before 1985, are quite useful. Other sources are amateur, reformist or anti-communist and have lower quality. Don't forget please that all Soviet marxist and historical literature was being worked up by scores of professional researchers. Central Committee had even the special scientific-research institution — Institute of Marxism-Leninism. --ComIntern 09:57, 24 March 2013 (GMT)