Talk:Brazilian Communist Party

Untitled

after all PCB and PPS are the same party, the group just changed its name. Thus it should be one article for PCB/PPS. --Soman 09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

-> No, they are totally different parties nowadays. They have different ideology, diferent registers, diferent numbers, different alliances. The articles defenitely shouldn't be merged.

The fact that the ideologies of parties change does mean that they are structually different. Neither does the fact that the party changed it registration change the fact that it is the same party. The question at stake is, did PCB dissolve itself and former members founded a new party, or did PCB change name to PPS? --Soman 16:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

-> Answering your question, the 10th Congress of the Brazilian Communist Party did, in fact, decided to change its name to Popular Socialist Party (PPS), as well as abandoning its classical structure and ideology.

Although, there are a lot of controversy about this: in first place, there were a lot of procedures on this Congress that did violated the PCB statute; the minority did not recognized this Congress and made another 10th Congress, resulting in the small party that calls itself PCB today - and made a historical review in favor of the positions of Luis Carlos Prestes in the party debate of the 1980´s; historical members of the PCB did not recognized the Congress results, joining the minority, abandoning the political life or joining other parties; even the PPS doesn´t consider itself to be the PCB with a new name, but the "heir of its best traditions"; the most recognized historical view in Brazil is that the PCB died in 1992 - just like the generally recognized historical view about the end of the Italian Communist Party (PCI).

The brazilian electoral justice initialy recognized the PPS as the continuation of the PCB, by allowing it to use the same electoral register. Meanwhile, this position was reviewd, which resulted in the recognition and the giving of electoral register to the party founded by the minority - todays PCB.

I believe that the best way to deal with this is to have three distinct articles, just like it was done in the case of the Italian Communist Party (PCI): one about the historical PCB (1922-1992), which can be classified as a defunct party; one about the PPS; and one about the nowadays PCB.

I happen to disagree. In my opinion, the PCB article should cover the whole history of the party, including its refoundation shortly after the creation of PPS. The PPS article, in turn, might also contain a small section about PCB as the party from which PPS has originated, but with a wikilink to the PCB article. Cheers Lomibz 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, that just adds additional confusion. the current PCB is not identical to the historical PCB. The party earlier known as PCB is now known as PPS. --Soman 14:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And now what? The "party earlier known as PCB" has finally and peremptorily ceased to exist. The last trace of the former Partidão has vanished. I truly believe that we should change our stance concerning the scope of this article.

I agree. The Party currently known as PCB is the same as historical PCB, maintaining its structure, methods and ideology. They are not identical parties, they are the same party, as referended by Brazilian Justiça Eleitoral. It is so true that Roberto Freire tried to patent the party under his property, as well as the hammer and sickle, knowing that it was going to be refounded. His 10th Congress is fake, many non-party members voted in it. This article should be merged with Brazilian Communist Party (1992) --El Chemaniaco (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hee, just something else: I do not think it is justified to say that socialist ideas did not develop in Brazil before the founding of the Communist Party. There had been various socialist congresses since the end of th 19th century. There were many anarchist, socialist and anarco-syndicalist newspapers. There were some moderate reformist socialists in congress who tried to develop labour legislation: Marcelo? Lacerda. It is true that anarchism, especially anarcho-syndicalism was dominant in these years, but they were not very strict anarchists and therefore also wrote about marxism and other socialist ideas. Moreover many founders of the PCB used to be anarchist in the years before, see Anarchism in Brazil Tamira C. 09:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I merged the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Chemaniaco (talk • contribs) 18:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As I see someone undid the merging I did, so I had it redone. Some arguments: From the "Tribunal Superior Eleitoral" website ([1] - in Portuguese) you can access the party's statute, from 1996 - the year of the registration - wich is oficialy registered as an alteration from previous statutes. As well, for those who affirm PPS is the historical PCB, it is notable that that party had its registration in 1992, the year of the split, and not dating from 1988, when PCB was registered (temporarily, definitive in 1990) along with PCdoB. This means they were registered as two different parties, and not has the same registration, later changing the name, as its the case, from instance, of DEM, with its registration dating back to 1986, when it was still called PFL.

Also, if you check the historic of the registrations, it can be seen that PCB, after the split with PPS, was temporarily registered already in 1993. The definite registration came in 1996, but under the petition called in 1989 that was used to previously register the same PCB that some are claiming to be today PPS. As oficial documents of the Brazilian State (in Portuguese) state:

"PARTIDO COMUNISTA BRASILEIRO - PCB

� O REGISTRO PROVISÓRIO. O PCB, representado pelo seu presidente nacional, o Sr. Horácio Cintra de Magalhães Macedo, na data de 2.4.93, requereu a esta egrégia Corte, mediante petição protocolizada sob nº 2978/93, o pedido de seu REGISTRO PROVISÓRIO, o qual originou o PROCESSO DE REGISTRO nº 252, deferido em sessão de 19.8.93, nos termos da Resolução/TSE nº 252, publicada no Diário da Justiça de 22.9.93. Obs: O nº da Resolução/TSE, é o mesmo nº do Processo de Registro. � REGISTRO DEFINITIVO. Dentro do prazo legal, de doze meses, previsto na Lei nº 5.682/71, o PCB, em petição protocolizada sob nº 3253/89, por intermédio de sua nova presidenta nacional a Srª. Zuleide Faria de Melo, requereu a concessão do seu REGISTRO DEFINITIVO, da qual originou o PROCESSO DE REGISTRO nº 262, sendo o mesmo deferido em sessão do dia 9.5.96, nos termos da Resolução/TSE nº 19.550, publicada no Diário da Justiça de 21.5.96.--El Chemaniaco (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

References

I have reformed the article to be more similar to the PCB article in the portuguese Wikipedia, and make it more in accordance with brazilian documents and the brazilian party court. The reform was reverted by Vif12vf. Please, state the reason of the reversion. ErikSouza (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

POV

The real issue here, from an encyclopedic standpoint, is that there are two very different points of view about whether the current PCB is in fact the successor of the old PCB or if it's a splinter of the PPS (and in that case, the PPS is the "real" successor to the "old" PCB). Currently the article, as it is written, strongly favors one of these points of view. It should be rewritten to address this -- the reader should be informed that that there was a Congress, there were some doubts about its validity (naming/quoting the critics), the actual results of that Congress, any disputes in the Court system, how the situation stands now (from both parts) and such. And a similar job would have to be done on the PPS page, in order for both to be consistent -- right now, they tell two very different stories. MCBastos (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I did some changes, withstanding the argument about the legalities of the 1992 congress. We have a separate article on Brazilian Communist Party (1992), and if one whats to contest the notion that PCB (1922) and PCB (1992) are different parties, then a merger discussion has to take place first. --Soman (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the other entry, it's good you linked to it. I updated the Brazilian political parties template to direct the link there. However, it might be more appropriate to rename the current page to "Brazilian Communist Party (historical)" and turn the current name into a disambiguation page. What do you think? MCBastos (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Electoral results

According to this source, PCB took 9.2% of the vote in the 1947 legislative election with about 480 thousand votes.[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.253.197 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brazilian Communist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211212852/http://www.institutoastrojildopereira.org.br:80/ to http://www.institutoastrojildopereira.org.br
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040202034832/http://www.vermelho.org.br:80/pcdob/80anos/trajetoria.asp to http://www.vermelho.org.br/pcdob/80anos/trajetoria.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903062915/http://www.ifcs.ufrj.br:80/%7Eamorj/ to http://www.ifcs.ufrj.br/~amorj/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)