Talk:Socialist Party of Latvia

message: Does 'Latvian Communist Party (CPSU platform)' refer to any specific faction, or does it just imply the Latvian branch of CPSU? --Soman 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to inform you in this respect: the Baltic commieparties split 1989-90, the pro-independence majority changed their platform and became independent of the CPSU (its direction and programme), Lithuania's CP was the first to do this (LDLP was established later from their independent CP)); the pro-Moscow hardline majority (mostly ethnic Russians) remained inside the CPSU and retained its programme/platform. Hence the name.--Constanz - Talk 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the developments of the mainstreams of the Estonian and Lithuanian parties. What about the Latvian party? I recall that some of the various soc dem parties were said to be inheritors of the CPSU branch. There was a Union of Communists of Latvia, was that the inheritors of the CPSU platform? --Soman 16:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If Union of Communists of Latvia has smth to do with Union of Communists of USSR (a russian political grouping), then this UCL hardly exists (UCUSSR Estonian counterpart has currently one member (!)). I think Socialist Party of Latvia is the heir to CPL. I may research it (though I personally do not care a bit which commies founded which party).--Constanz - Talk 16:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If some of the various soc dem parties were said to be inheritors of the CPSU branch., then only of the CP (pro-independence) part.--Constanz - Talk 16:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, i ment the pre-split CPSU branch. I don't doubt that SPL is heir of the pro-Soviet wing in the political sense, but is there a direct organizational connection? I recall that there was some communist, intermediary, organisation that got banned, provoking the forming of SPL. --Soman 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After banning the pro-Union CPL in 1991, the Union of Communists of Latvia was founded, the most prominent figure there was Albert Lebedev. Registration was refused to UCL and it existed illegally, co-operating with communists of Russia. In 2005, Lebedev still called himself a chairman of UCL (outside of SPL) and participated in some left street actions, but I don't know if he leads any real group now.--217.198.224.13 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: At least in Estonia after the failed August coup, Intermovement, Strike Committes and CPSU (and thus, organisations directly connected to it) were banned. --Constanz - Talk 16:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On the Swedish Wikipedia it says that the party is Communist, but here on the English Wikipedia it says that it is Socialist. What is correct?? --Oddeivind (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still communist, rather. Rubiks has occasionally appeared on Russia's hard-left communist organizations' forums with Bolshevik-style speeches. I doubt if the 'cadres' of the party would be much different... --Miacek (t) 12:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it would probably be best to use the term "Communist" also on the English wikipedia. The term "Socialist" is quite broad and often used to describe anyone from Social democrats on the centre left to communists on the "hard left". --Oddeivind (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist or Communist? 

message: This party is Stalinist in its thinking. It supports fully the annexation of Latvia in 1940 and its occupation in 1945. The Soviet occupation of Latvia and the Baltic is a crime to those people and a living proof of Stalin’s imperialism. But then again communism is not what Stalin made of it. --UDSS (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I agree with your interpretation of the 1940 events, I disagree with the Trotsky-inspired interpretation that the Soviet communism was not 'authentic' communism.  As an Austrian free market liberal has put it: In the field of domestic policies, Trotsky resorted to the well-tried traditional tricks which Marxians had always applied in criticizing socialist measures adopted by other parties. Whatever Stalin did was not true socialism and communism, but, on the contrary, the very opposite of it, a monstrous perversion of the lofty principles of Marx and Lenin. All the disastrous features of public control of production and distribution as they appeared in Russia were, in Trotsky’s interpretation, brought about by Stalin’s petty bourgeois policies.However, All essential items in Trotsky’s program were in perfect agreement with the policies of Stalin. Trotsky advocated the industrialization of Russia. It was this that Stalin’s Five-Year Plan aimed at. Trotsky advocated the collectivization of agriculture. Stalin established the Kolkhoz and liquidated the Kulaks. Trotsky favored the organization of a big army. Stalin organized such an army. The truth is that Trotsky found only one fault with Stalin: that he, Stalin, was the dictator and not himself, Trotsky. In their feud they both were right. Stalin was right in maintaining that his regime was the embodiment of communist principles. Trotsky was right in asserting that Stalin’s regime had made Russia a hell.. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Communist