Anarchopedia talk:en:what Anarchopedia is not
On the english anarchopedia, i just see that :
- American Committee of the Fourth International
- American Workers Party
- Bolshevik Tendency
- Che-Lives
- Communist League of America
- Communist Party of Colombia
- Communist Party of Greece
- Communist Party of Indochina
- Communist Party of Indonesia
- Communist Party of Kampuchea
- Communist Party of Nepal (Fourth Convention)
- Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)
- Communist Party of Nepal (Masal)
- Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal)
- Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal-CC)
- Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal-COC)
- Communist Party of Nepal (Unity Centre)
- Communist Party of Peru Communist Party of Vietnam
- Communist Workers Party
- FARC
- FARC-EP
- International Bolshevik Tendency
- Khmer People's Revolutionary Party
- Peruvian Communist Party
- Progressive Labor Party
- Revolutionary Communist Party
I don't see what can be the interest of knowing the leninist's party/history. That there's anarchists critical articles on marxists/marxism or leninist inside anarchopedia is not a problem, but that it be just a descriptive article on "communist leninist party" without anarchist's positions, i think it is without interest, and that a link on (->) wikipedia would be sufficient. Cause, what about articles on "fascists party", "capitalists party", "nationalists party", "Étatist party", is it too 'acceptable' (fr) factions ? I don't think so. "Communists parties" (even if they have nothing of communist, except the flag) are f...... dictators which could assasinate anarchists on the 20 century, and that have blow down (fr:écraser) the worker movement. i think it's not necessary to help authoritarian to be known (they have suficients capacities). Libre 04:32, 3 May 2005 (CDT)
