Talk:International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties

Party emblems

Could someone upload some more of the Party emblems. I dont know how to do it, otherwise I would.

Register an account at wikipedia. See the upper right corner (sign in). then click the link to open a new account. Then you click 'upload file' in the left column. --Soman 14:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Title change

The title should be "List of participants at International Conference of Communist & Workers' Parties". As it staed is not hosted only by KKE. -- Magioladitis 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It should actually read "International Meeting of Communist & Workers' Parties" this is what its referred to on all the sites I've looked at including the official one for the 11th Meeting http://11imcwp.inBrezhnev b20 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's strange, because at solidnet it's written with an "and", so I will correct the name that way. - João Jerónimo (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use removal

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content has been removed. Please do not restore them. -M^ask? 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why the article needs party logos at all... But that's me. - João Jerónimo (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Philippines, 2012

I'm quite sure that the Philippine party in 2012 is the PKP-1930, not the Maoist CPP. --Soman (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the official source says otherwise... --TIAYN (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I also saw that, but keep in mind that it's a document from Lebanese CP, not KKE. These fine differences might easily get lost in translation. For example, PCC is presented as 'Communist Party of Cataluña', which is also incorrect. --Soman (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

True, true, and there are two disctint parties which are called the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, and I don't know which one they are referring to, since none of the two attended the same meeting... But back to the issue at hand, I have no clue how to verify that... I've tried, but failed. Maybe I didn't try hard enough??? I'll try again.. --TIAYN (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Parliamentary representation and other issues

Personally, I don't see the point of having the parliamentary representation of the parties. Just consider the parties that are in power in communist coutries. In these coutries the electoral system is different, and the representation of the parties is not comparable with the others.

Overall, I think that the guy who changed the old layout of the article made a complete mess of it, making it basically unusable, with 6 megatables that do not fit the screen and don't add any useful information. I recognise the temptation to have proper tables instead of an inline list of the participating parties (I myself had that temptation while writing the original article because in fact it's easier to browse a table than an inline list), but in this case the table just wastes space while virtually adding no useful information, and for some reason I made it that way. Even the "Leader" column is essentially useless, because the parties often send someone other than the leader to the conference, and everyone knows that communist parties are not based on one-man authority.

It's not that useful to be able to browse the list of parties. More useful than that were the maps that showed the countries that had parties present in the meetings, because that way one can have a clear view of the representativeness of each meeting.

These are my views. Of course, I will not revert the article to it's original state, because I know beforehand that if I do so, some stupid bot will think that I'm a vandal or so and will revert it back, :-) even though the guy that made a mess of the article did not ask anybody (including me) about their opinion on the article layout. Well, I will restore the map.

But,... that's just my opinion, despite the provocative tone. - João Jerónimo (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The systems are rather different in countries with or wothout true multi-party systems. The systems also ar different for different 'Communist countries'.

China and Vietnam kave - as far as I know - still "block party systems". That means that they have a bunch of parties, of which the Communist party is one, and where the others officially recognise the C.P. as the leading one and the others as in some sense subjugate. This does not mean that they agree with the C.P. in everything; they may e.g. "represent" some sectors of the people, and they sometimes have some smallbut not completely non-existing possibilities to influence politics in some minor points, by direct unofficial personal contacts, or direct negotiations. The parliamentary places are distributed among the block parties by direct negotiations between them; the electorate has no real influence on the distribution.

On Cuba, which has no "block parties", the tabelled display now claims that the C.P. holds all mandates. This is actually only one of three formally possible answers for the number of C.P. delegates: "All", "none", or "some". "All", in the sense, that all MP's are loyal to the Communist rule of the country.

In another sense, the answer is "none", since formally the C.P. and every other party is banned from participating in the election process - as a party. This means, that (formally) members of the C.P. or of one of the rather small (but not quite formally outlawed) dissident parties may be nominated and elected to the parliament, but not as party members. The delegates are formally nominated and elected on their personal merits, and all parties are formally prohibited from campaigning. Since in reality the C.P. controls the nomination committees, and since the number of candidates to the parliament equals the number to be elected, this is in reality not a restriction for the C.P., but it does prohibit open opposition campaigning. Thus, a large number of MP's are elected in a formal "zero-party system election", and just incidently and separately from this happen to be C.P. members.

The third answer, "some", is of course a question of how many of the MP's which actually are party members. I don't know the answer for this, butit might exist somewhere in the Cuban authorities information about their parliament. As being formally not related to the election process, probably, this information is played down; even if the Cuban authorities surely do keep track of it. I guess that the persentage is high, but I don't know. JoergenB (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes to be added

Proposing an additional subsection or caption/reference for countries that are single-party dictatorships. That Cuba is represented as being overwhelmingly supportive of it's governing regime is objectively unreasonable as there is no option other than the ruling party. In the interest of providing unbiased information to wikipedia's viewership, the consideration of adding a legend of one party states through any means should be considered necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.23.32.224 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Participants in 2017

Would it be a good idea to add the participants of the 2017 meeting? I so happen to have found a list of participants! Tiberius Jarsve (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tiberius Jarsve I think the we should simplify the page altogether even though it is a bit of work (while adding the working members for 2017). Most other annual internationals have a working group list and a list of former participants. It is easier to manage that way too. But yes, to add the 2017 meeting is a good idea. --Alexmunger (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, the list i had is no longer available online. I think IMCWP has got a problem with their digital participants-lists at the moment. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

9th meeting hosts

The text for the 9th meeting currently reads: "The 9th meeting was held in Minsk, Belarus, from 3 to 5 November 2007 and was hosted by the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB)" This seems like it was copied from the 10th meeting, and it doesn't make sense that the meeting in Belarus would be hosted by a Brazilian party. Are there reports of the 9th meeting which could clarify this? The section is unreferenced as it is. Extua (talk) 13:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

ÖDP

ÖDP never had an IMCWP membership so it needs to be deleted. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Comrade-yutyo, thanks for pointing it out. Your edit had broken the Ukraine section, so I had to revert it - but it was deleted afterwards. BunnyyHop (^talk) 00:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Map Error

There is at least one issue with this map, which is that the ROK is colored red instead of the DPRK. 2600:6C44:757F:99ED:DDD2:8AFE:1E05:3BBD (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)