Talk:Communist Party of Norway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Distrust over Secret Police's existance

I removed the following paragraph:

The secret police and the ruling social-democratic party succeeded in this, as well as the communist party had also had several strong internal divisions that diminished the party.

These look like serious accusations, "secret police" in post-war Norway is something I'm unaware of (was that supposed to be secret service?). I'm not saying it did not happen, but please find some third-party documentation before reinstating.--Orzetto 22:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Read the 'Lund report'. This is fairly well documented today.--Soman

"Secret police" here probably refers to "politiets overvåkningstjeneste" / POT. It is well documented as Soman mentions. Personally I have also spoken to several NKP members that I trust that have personally been told face to face by POT personell that they were under surveillance. Arne Jørgensen is one example (he was relatively high profile as one of NKP's more public personalities in the 70's) - he once related to me how he once ran into a high ranking officer from POT in the street and started chatting to him (They were both semi-public figures, and had met in the past, and both obviously knew about the surveillance), whereupon the POT officer asked Arne if he'd resolve the fight he'd had with his wife the other day... At home, behind closed doors. I know this is second hand information, and Arne could have been lying (though, given the context of my conversation with him, I doubt he did), and I'm posting anonymously. But I thought it an interesting enough story to mention on the talk page even if it definitively doesn't belong in the article.--V

I've added a bit of information on the early 90's, expanding on the party's changing attitude towards the Soviet era, and also added links to Friheten and the statement of principles. Parts of my changes can be verified against the statement of principles. The rest can be easily verified through back issues of Friheten - though I am writing out of personal experience. I'd cite references if I could, but unfortunately little of NKP's history past the early 70's is well documented. I was a member, including a delegate to one of the party congresses, between 1991 an 1995. I joined explicitly because their reaction to the August coup in the Soviet Union satisfied me that their attitudes were changing for the better. One one hand it mans I know my statements in the entry are reasonable, on the other hand it does man my writing may be coloured by my background and more importantly that is why I am posting anonymously (at the moment I'd rather not prospective employers know about my political life...)--V

Calm down. There's no more any "lund"'s around, sticking their dirty noses into political buisness. Don't they know it doesn't make them ANY better than the people they're tryin' to criticize? 'Neway's, not all of "us" are like "that", either. Personally, I think, as an anti-authitorian Communist, that it's safe to roar your head in public now. I don't attempt to hide nor baloon my views. Employers have no right to do that, despite what television say's. "Extreme viewpoints" are written as a possible reason for sacking, but, only if it hurts the practice of the job. Hardly in anything but publical relations. P.S., I'm from Norway too, but not a part of any party (Yet?) and I don't have an official job (To worry about, heheh). By the way: IP's recorded 'neway's, so steppin' into the light only makes it "more obvious" to a certaint extent...as in getting an user to relate to.--OleMurder 12:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Not worried about and "Lund"'s, but not too interested in a Google search showing up too much, especially as I often work for US companies that have leaderships that may not be as enlightened as I'd like --V

[edit] Propaganda

I removed the word "propaganda" from the bit about the campaign against the party from 1948, as I find it a heavily loaded word. As the article already states that NKP was totally loyal to Moscow at this point, it cannot be said to have been propaganda to warn that the party was not democratically declined and aimed at creating a dictatorship. The dictatorship of the proletariat was in its program, after all. (Barend 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

While I'm not going to change the wording of that section, as it is doubtless that the party at that time was in favor of Stalinist policies, pointing to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as evidence that the party was not democratically inclined at that point shows a total lack of understanding of Marxist terms. In Marxist terms "dictatorship" refers to whomever holds effective power. As a result, capitalist democracies are often referred to as the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" on the theory that the middle and upper classes holds effective control over society in such countries, whereas "dictatorship of the proletariat" refers to a state of government where the proletariat - i.e. the segment of society that does not own property or means of productions, and that are dependent on their work for their day to day needs - controls the government.

The dictatorship of the proletariat _may_ be a dictatorship in modern terms, but just as well a democracy - it itself the term says nothing about the form of government, or whether that government has the support of a majority of the people. In Marxist theory, the original assumption was that a revolution in a capitalist society would not take place until the proletariat made up an overwhelming majority, and hence that the dictatorship of the proletariat, while limiting the rights of the bourgeoisie would be more democratic than the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, particularly since any limitations would be aimed at removing special advantages gained by the bourgeoisie by making use of their economic advantages. The October revolution in Russia shook that theory, though it was ultimately more analogous to the Terror during the French revolution, i.e. a radicalization of what was essentially a revolution in a feudal, agrarian society that fulfilled none of the theoretic criteria outlined by Marx for a socialist revolution. In that context the "dictatorship of the proletariat" turned into an excuse for persecution by the Bolcheviks who were already just a tiny minority (a power base of _maybe_ 10% or so of the people) and thus effectively little more than executors of a military coup.