Talk:Chinese Communist Party

CPC. Communist Party of China.

This is the official name. The way US press and public refers to it does not change the fact. The articule title should be Communist Party of China. 2A0C:5A85:D500:EE00:984:A7CA:3925:1FB9 (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic because you're not wrong. But please read the FAQ at the top. If this is to change it will require someone to put the effort into a policy based argument for the change that supersedes the 2020 commonname decision. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

We do not say it is not official. We do not even try to hide that form from the reader. All we do is use the form commonly used by most native English speakers. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I actually did a bit of digging on this recently and, among academics, it is not the form most commonly used with academic work slightly favoring CPC over CCP. It was a pretty significant split - like a 40-60 sort of thing - so I don't know how compelling that would be to some of the more set-in-their-was members of this page. But it is true that we have this wrong. I don't think it's a significant enough error to go to the mattresses over but it's still an error. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And general use is almost entirely CCP. So I don't see how your point matters.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

That unsubstantiated belief is exactly why we are going to continue to be embarrassingly wrong about this minor point. And us page-watchers will continue to have to field comments that correctly point out we're wrong about this. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, we will contine to have to deal with questions like this because people don't understand that "official name" doesn't count for much. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, I literally did the numbers on common use in academic sources. The claim that the global public prefers CCP is based, as far as I can tell, entirely on vibes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22chinese%20communist%20party%22,%22communist%20party%20of%20china%22&hl=en User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It is clear that we should use the correct page title and correct CPC acronym. I do not fully understand the intensity that frequently arises on this issue. Both formulations are common in English. Neither will create confusion. "CCP"-proponents put too much weight on their mathematical impression on common name. Where we have multiple common names, we should be more precise and use the correct one. I do not understand why we would want to be imprecise on so simple a point.

These questions will come up again and again until the page title is correct as it once was. I do not know, however, when the proper time for the formal discussion should be. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The last RfC was in 2020. Anyone could open a new one with a sufficiently neutral question on the basis of this as an RFCBefore. Simonm223 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The last discussion about this was in October 2023. Still not seeing any new evidence presented or novel arguments. - Amigao (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

My argument about academic sources preferring CPC is a novel argument. Frankly the google search terms being used as evidence for WP:COMMONNAME systematically exclude Chinese people from consideration as Google is not used extensively within China. I find the rigidity of this local consensus somewhat perplexing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you even read the last discussion? This was mentioned then (If we adhered to "common usage in sources" by following WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RS, then we would be using "Communist Party of China", since in scholarly articles on JSTOR, which are generally considered more reliable than news reports in academia, the aforementioned name is more common. Searching "communist party of china" yields 98306 results, but searching "chinese communist party" yields 83778 results. Félix An (talk) 5:11 am, 27 October 2023, Friday (1 year, 3 months, 19 days ago) (UTC−4)), but consensus was that overall usage was still CCP. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on Google data that excludes most usage in China? Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We're interested in general English usage, not Chinese usage. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Lots of Chinese people speak English. A claim that says that a certain formulation is more widely used and that presents, as evidence, a source that isn't able to touch the country at the heart of the discussion is a flawed methodology. This is why I say we're wrong. We've come to the decision of WP:COMMONNAME with information which is incomplete in a non-neutral way. This is ultimately somewhat trivial. But we're still wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on my research, most major English-language media outlets (BBC, CNN, The New York Times, Al Jazeera, etc.) refer to it as the Chinese Communist Party. The AP Stylebook accepts both Communist Party of China and Chinese Communist Party as valid terms. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Wiki titles should use the most recognizable and widely used names. Since mainstream media, which is basically the primary source of information for most people, refers to it as the Chinese Communist Party, this name is the most common and recognizable choice. Frankserafini87 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

What does SCMP use? Or People's Daily? Or CCTV5? Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

The South China Morning Post has never been consistent with one standard, even within the same article and even after it was acquired by Alibaba Group in 2016. For example: 1, 2, 3. Amigao (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: People's Daily, it is interesting that it has used Chinese Communist Party not only in official figure profiles of Mao Zedong and Zhu De (e.g., 1, 2), but even in translated statements by Yang Jiechi as recently as 2022 (example: 3). It is somewhat curious why they would not stick to one standard. - Amigao (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

What do Chinese publishers have to do with English usage? Secondary language users do not set standards. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The publications I mentioned are all English language. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Secondary usage doesn't set standards. We don't ask the Polish how to say something in Swahili. Or the Japanese how to say things in Quechua. Same goes here. The Chinese don't determine how to say things in English.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a nonsense analogy. The appropriate comparison would be asking Polish people how to translate their own words into English. No third language is involved. Simonm223 (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase, Poles don't get to determine how to speak Swahili. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If a reputable Polish organisation released a publication in the Swahili language that would be part of the body of reliable sources used in determining common name within that language, I don't see why it being from Poland would disqualify it. There's no such thing as "Secondary language users" in Wikipedia policy as far as I know, and Chinese publications written in English can also be considered here. Personally I don't think we should move this page, given the available evidence, the CCP naming seems to be clearly still the common name, and the clamour for it to be renamed seems to be largely based on an incorrect inference about what the word Chinese means in this context (i.e. it pertains to the country of China, not to the Chinese ethnicity). But either way, we don't need to invent rules that don't exist to make the point!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Nah I'm not concerned about the definition of "Chinese". I'm just a stickler for accuracy who doesn't really like it when Wikipedia contains incorrect information for relatively trivial reasons. CPC is correct. CCP is a nickname. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That just isn't how our naming policy works, though. What you may deem "correct" or a "nickname" doesn't factor into the decision, it's usage in reliable sources and the WP:COMMONNAME policy that is key. This is all detailed at the WP:OFFICIALNAMES explanatory essay. Of course, there might come a time when sources predominantly use the CPC nomenclature and then we'd change of course, but for now (as of the last RM anyway) there was still a significant lead for CCP and that's what we stick with.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

This is ultimately the spike we're caught on. I've contended that COMMONNAME depends on use of Google Ngram which cannot trace English language activity in China, where Google is largely blocked. As such I don't believe we have strong evidence that CCP is the common name. It may be the common name in the United States. But treating the popular American nickname for the CPC as if it were the default people use is non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Just like how we title the wikipedia page Warszawa instead of Warsaw as is common in English. Or how we of course call the former Poland-Lithuania union the Republic of Poland-Lithuania as that is how the Poles nowadays translate Rzeczpospolita? 2001:8003:1C20:8C00:A037:4FC0:55F1:E593 (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Political position

Hi everyone. This is clearly left-wing to far-left party. Or minimally left-wing. The are a lot of sources that describe the party as that. I do not understand how at this point, the party has no political position. Marty McDonalds (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Or, state capitalism. Maybe, national socialism? Sorry, but your unsourced opinion is not quite the verifiable source we require around here. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

On the question of the definition of ideology

I think we're spliting too-fine hairs about what constitutes "ideology" here. Remember that the question even of whether ideology is a thing is not fully settled. Per Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism institutes or restores all sorts of residual and artificial, imaginary, or symbolic territorialities, thereby attempting, as best it can, to recode, to rechannel persons who have been defined in terms of abstract quantities. Everything returns or recurs: States, nations, families. That is what makes the ideology of capitalism "a motley painting of everything that has ever been believed." The real is not impossible; it is simply more and more artificial. As ideology is not entirely a settled academic concept I think it probably is best for us to use a relatively colloquial description - which would probably include treating the Three Represents, Xi Jinping Thought and others as ideological material. We should, of course, make sure our descriptions of this ideological material adheres strictly to reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you accept as reliable the Chinese Communist Party? They themselves define their ideology ... DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The page should match that of other pages where only concepts that are specifically defined and cited as a political ideology on their respective Wikipedia page are listed in the infobox. We don't need to get into a philosophical debate on what is and is not a political ideology. Helper201 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

and they probably define their ideology truthfully ... as most movements do. TheUzbek (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

What ideologies should be the infobox?

DOR (HK), Simonm223, TheUzbek, Amigao what ideologies should be the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Communism, Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Outlook on Development, Xi Jinping Thought. I'm open to discussion on most of these apart from communism and Marxism–Leninism, which I absolutely think should be included. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is a set of political theories and policies, not an ideology. Three Represents is a sociopolitical theory and Scientific Outlook on Development is a socio-economic principle, again both not political ideologies, so these should be removed. Helper201 (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Make it simple: communism suffices, or more clearly, "Marxism–Leninism", and if you must, "Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics"

Officially, Mao Zedong Though combines "the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism with the actual practice of the Chinese revolution."

The "Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and is composed of Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Develpoment and Xi Jinping Thought... While people (and commentators) often write that Xi Jinping Thought is on the same level as Mao Zedong Thought, the party constitution writes that is an "important component of the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics", which is officially inferior to Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.

The problem is that WP only has an article on "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" and not an article on the "Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese characteristics". TheUzbek (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Those for which we have reliable sources - which, yes, should include (but not be limited to) internal CPC sources as this is a WP:ABOUTSELF situation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

While looking for refs that relate to this topic on Wikipedia library I found this article:

Different Discursive Constructions of Chinese Political Congresses in China Daily and The New York Times: A Corpus-based Discourse Study. By: Du, Lijuan, Critical Arts: A South-North Journal of Cultural & Media Studies, 02560046, Oct-Dec2021, Vol. 35, Issue 5/6 - and it is absolutely fascinating and would definitely be useful for this article if not this specific topic. It may also still be useful for this specific topic. I am still reading. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been saying this regarding the use of news sources by Wikipedia for years: As suggested by Fairclough ([12]), the news discourse is not a direct reflection of reality but constructs reality in the way that news producers expect and serves the interests of specific groups Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly the article could probably serve to support Communism, without adjectives, (weakly) as an ideology of the CPC through statements about the significance of anti-communism, saying Anti-communism was "a national religion and control mechanism" in Western media (Herman and Chomsky [15], 2), because the concept of communism posed a danger to the United States-led capitalist economic order and Western democracy. Generally I think it's going to be more useful elsewhere in the article though. I'll keep looking. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I get it, but this is becoming very abstract. Marxism is only (in its bare essence) a materialist conception (that is, materialism as in philosophy): the belief that everything is matter and human construct and labour is influenced by matter. They also believe that given human constructions, such as the level of society, is bound by certain objective material constraints. A given set of individuals with close or nearly identical relations to material productiojn are defined as a class. The communist party represents a given material relation, and is considered a tool by those wielding it to interpret the objective laws of material relations so that humanity can build the society they deserve. That is, literally what Marxism is. Whatever one wants to say, there are no indications that the CPC is not materialist. You could argue that they don't represent the working class, but again, Marxism is very loose. TheUzbek (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We should keep MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in mind, as infoboxes tend to get cluttered which limits their overall effectiveness. - Amigao (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, communism should suffice. TheUzbek (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I should note that the novel source I introduced for Communism was pretty weak. I think, if we are going to keep things very simple, then something like Socialism with Chinese characteristics would be preferable to other options. In general I think we should go with wherever the most reliable sources point us. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur, and most recent sources say they are communists. The whole point of Kevin Rudd's book, On Xi Jinping: How Xi's Marxist Nationalism is Shaping China and the World, is that people should stop pretending that the ideological documents emanating from the CPC are lies. Steve Tsang and Olivia Cheung also conclude that Xi, and by extension the CPC, is communists in their book The Political Thought of Xi Jinping. The best academic book on Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping: Political Career, Governance, and Leadership, 1953-2018 by Alfred L. Chan, also conclusively concludes that Xi and the CPC are communists and Marxist-Leninists. Don't make this more controversial than it is. A communist party believes in communism; that should be obvious and non-surprising! TheUzbek (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you please provide some page citations for these statements because these are perfect - so we should make sure the cites are high quality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Who is the most authoritative source on the ideology of the CCP? The CCP.

Anything else is (at best) analysis by a subject expert, rather than a statement of fact by the best possible source. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's not deviate away from also maintaining Marxism–Leninism as well as communism. Amigao brings up a good point in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However, I think reducing it down to a single ideology is overboard in terms of simplification and doesn't reflect the vast majority of infoboxes on Wikipedia and would be far too oversimplified. I think 2 to 4 ideologies is usually a good number in terms being informative without being overbearing. I strongly disagree with having Socialism with Chinese characteristics under the ideology section as its a set of political theories and policies, not a political ideology in-of-itself. I think we do have a general consensus for communism and Marxism–Leninism, so are we okay to keep the ideology section of the infobox to these two? Helper201 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me unless I can squeak in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as more specific. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry slow response, here is a long quote by Kevin Rudd (pp 35-36 & 48):

"Therefore, given the positive value the CCP has attached to ideological innovation for much of its history, we return to the question of defining the irreducible elements of Chinese Marxism that make up its essential, ideational canon and which have survived tumultuous political change. Based on the detailed studies of Schurmann and others and drawing on the conclusions outlined in the earlier sections of this chapter, I argue that there are seven. First, Chinese Marxism represents a definitively materialist rather than idealist view of history, meaning that knowledge proceeds from human interaction with the material universe rather than any form of metaphysics. Second, this knowledge forms part of a consistent set of irresistible, scientific laws of development which apply across both the physical and social sciences. Third, one such set of universal laws is the theory of historical determinism of Marx and Engels, which ultimately sees a communist society emerge through immutable dialectical processes from the injustices of slave, feudal, capitalist, and even socialist societies. Fourth, the machinery of change in this process is dialectical materialism, based on the concept of the unity of opposites, the inter- permeation of phenomena, and the theory of contradiction. Fifth, within this framework of dialectical materialism, the law of contradictions operates when opposites (i.e. progressive and reactionary forces) collide, requiring resolution through either violent or non- violent struggle, depending on whether those contradictions are with ‘the enemy’ or among ‘the people’. Sixth, these universal laws apply as much to contradictions between classes within a society as they do to contradictions between states of the capitalist and imperialist world, and between these states and the socialist world. Struggle is, therefore, universally applicable, both within states and between them. Finally, the various laws described above are both determinist and voluntarist— that is, although the irresistible forces of world history are propelling the world in this direction, the pace at which the world advances is also determined by the active political agency of individual and collective actors.
"This book rests unapologetically on this latter proposition, namely that Xi’s Marxist- Leninist Nationalism is actually believed."

TheUzbek (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree! The problem with that arguement is that ideology becomes an empty-vessel, but that is politics. They call themselves communist, and yes, obviously the meaning of what communism is has changed since Mao, but they use that term nontheless. That change is extremely interesting; the label, not so much! It is only interesting in the sense in what that label entail: if you call yourself a communist you oppose the world capitalist system led by the USA. That is the consequence of that label. TheUzbek (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

K.I.S.S.: Commie Dogs. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

? TheUzbek (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The Chinese Communist Party's ideology is communism. Shade it or leave it alone, it is still communism. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)