Talk:Communist front

message: I'm suggesting that the article List of Comintern affiliate organizations, which presently is in fact a list of alleged CPUSA front groups as of 1948 (as far as I can tell) be merged in to this article. Rafaelgr 20:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that proposal, although I not sure if this is the best title for the article (perhaps 'CPUSA fronts', 'List of organizations linked to CPUSA' would be better names). --Soman 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "alleged" is key here. Some of the groups cited were only suspected of being communist front organizations. Some seem to have been chosen because CP members participated, or they rejected McCarthyism at a pivotal moment. 'List of organizations linked to CPUSA' is just an OK title, so long as the article explains who the did the linking and for what purpose for each and every organization. DJ Silverfish 00:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I don't think anyone here could explain the situation with all of these; I believe the list was just copied out of a HUAC report or something of that nature. Rafaelgr 20:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the poster Merecat. That end,  I've changed the internal list on this page to read "Alleged CPUSA front organizations, circa 1944".  The inclusion of Communist Political Association dates the list to 1944 - 1945, when the party reconstituted itself as a non-party political action committee under the direction of Earl Browder.  This was reversed by 1946.  The article as a whole needs more US-specific historical context, since it is mostly concerned with the late 1940's and the Progressive Party, anyway.  
DJ Silverfish 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

message: Please do not rename until the merger issue is resolved, unless it is via a RM.--Cerejota (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename 

message: An official list from a government source is exactly the sort of information Wikipedia is good at. Deleting it is blatant POV on the part of one editor. Rjensen (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please focus on the content, not the editor. This assertion is completely incorrect: we are not a random collection of information, we are an encyclopedia. A list article of notable organizations might have encyclopedic value, but a list of non-notable or irrelevant organizations is not only not encyclopedic, it approaches copy-vio.--Cerejota (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about specific organizations. An official government list of these organizations is NOT some random collection of information. As for copy-vio, we are dealing with non-copyright info published by the US government. The readers needs to know what exactly we are talking about here.And it is certainly notable that the government compiled and published such lists, as many RS like Schrecker have noted. Rjensen (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully that it is certainly notable that the government compiled and published such lists. But that is not what you are doing, you are listing them, not saying that the government compiled such lists. Do you get that? Please see WP:L.--Cerejota (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: we are saying the government compiled this famous list and here it is. Rjensen (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: The attempt to expand the article by quotefarming and synthing every possible mention of 'communist front' on google just makes the article less and less understandable and coherent. Could someone explain the newly-introduced passage on Nicaragua? Was the entire Nicaraguan nation a 'communist front' or what? Are the international instutions mentioned inter-governmental bodies (such as COMECON, etc..) or the international bodies that mass organization belonged to (WFDY, WFTU, etc.)? To my knowledge Nicaraguan organizations were well represented in the latter case well prior to 1983. --Soman (talk) 03:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the passage is based on the RS provided. which RS Soman is using is unknown so it's hard to comment. Wiki policy is to broaden articles so they do not merely have an American focus. Rjensen (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipolicy also says that large lists belong in list articles or wikisource, yet you insist in inserting them here.--Cerejota (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicaragua 

message: One editor seems to believe the  Attorney General list of alleged Communist fronts, 1948, which is covered in this article and in numerous RS, is not an important part of the story. He has been able to provide no reason for his strange personal POV, and instead erases fully sourced information that would be of value to readers of this comprehensive encyclopedia. Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming names

message: This article is a total mess, and most of the material deviates from the core subject. Rather than dealing with communist front organizations in the proper sense, it becomes a reference farm to push the notion that communism equals the Kremlin.
Communist parties, coming from the Leninist tradition, are cadre parties to which membership is restricted. Thus, most CPs relied on building open mass organizations to create a broader interface. The role of mass organizations in the Comintern period is a bit complex, as the policy on mass organizations shifted back and forth. But from the Popular Front period onwards the creation of sector-based mass organization is a common feature of most major CPs.
At the end of WWII new international sector-based coordinating bodies were created, in which communist-linked organizations cohabited with non-communist organizations. This development coincided with the establishment of new regimes in Eastern Europe, increase of popularity of communist parties in the West and decolonization in the South. As the Cold War began, student organizations and trade unions etc became torn in geopolitical conflict between US and Soviet Union. All of this occured in an environment were intelligence agencies on both sides were active. To reduce the international bodies in which many communist front organizations participated to KGB apparatus is just as wrong as reducing ICFTU to a CIA front organization. Sure, the ICFTU was a largely a product of the Cold War and US intelligence ops worked to establish pro-Western trade unions around the world, but regardless of the political motivations that midwifed it would be way too simplistic to describe the ICFTU as merely a CIA front.
The persistent and erroneous argument made in this article is the notion that being a 'communist front' equates relationship or economic dependence with the Soviet Union. This is highly misleading, for a start not all Communist Parties (and their associated mass organizations) held the post-Stalin Soviet Union in high esteem. Many communist front organizations were in fact vehemetly anti-Soviet. Nor is it correct to say that communist front organizations would be economically dependent on a CP, in many cases the relationship was inverse (with the mass organizations providing economic support to the CP).
In theory, it would be possible to have a descent and factual article on the Leninist position on mass organizations and its practical application in different periods and contexts. But such an article won't be able to develop as long as POV-pushers insist on jamming the article with conspiracy arguments. --Soman (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Soman is wrong.  It is not true that communist fronts are a post ww2 innovation (they date from 1920s) and it is false that "the notion that being a 'communist front' equates relationship or economic dependence with the Soviet Union."  -- economics (I suppose he means cash subsidies) played a minor role. Ideology was far more important.  The statement "Many communist front organizations were in fact vehemetly anti-Soviet." refers of course to the Chinese Communist fronts after the bitter breat between USSR and China in late 1950s.  Rjensen (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not reading my comment properly, I did make reference to Comintern era above. Anyway, I'm glad you agree that ideology as the core element. --Soman (talk) 09:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul