Category: Party Voices
New wave of anti-communist hysteria in the Ukraine
| April 3, 2015 | 10:46 pm | Party Voices, political struggle, Ukraine | No comments

CP of Ukraine, New wave of anti-communist hysteria and repressions was initiated by the Ukrainian government, Thursday, 02 April 2015 13:48 Communist Party of Ukraine

The Communist Party of Ukraine informs that today, April 1, 2015, the Security Service of Ukraine initiated prosecution of the leader of Ukrainian communists Petro Symonenko on fabricated and false charges.

CP Ukraine

The Head of the Security Service Valentin Nalyvaychenko stated through media about the alleged involvement of members of the Communist Party in terrorist activities. Petro Symonenko was also accused of illegal[ly] obtaining of Russian citizenship, of involvement in the administration of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and of hiding in Russia.

The Communist Party of Ukraine states that all such charges are insinuations aimed to decapitate the leftist movement in Ukraine, to destroy its organizationally and transform it from the real opposition to the regime of junta into “pocket opposition”.

We understand that the forces are unequal and appeal to our colleagues in the leftist movement, to the communist and workers’ parties of Europe, to the members of the EU Parliament and PACE to support our struggle to stop the war in Ukraine and against the establishment of a fascist dictatorship.

We remind that the “brown plague” of fascism unleashed the carnage of World War II with the ban Communists.

If we don’t stop fascism in Ukraine today, fire of war breaks out in Europe tomorrow!

Communist Party of Ukraine

Central Committee

Department for the International Relations

Chuy Garcia and the right to a city



Chicago is abuzz these days as incumbent Mayor Rahm Emanuel is in an unexpected and fiercely competitive election runoff with challenger and longtime progressive Latino leader Jesus “Chuy” Garcia. What was supposed to have been a waltz into a second term for Emanuel has turned into a fight for his political life.

Garcia got a late start, is behind in the polls, has nothing close to the deep pockets or name recognition of Emanuel, and is up against the city’s political establishment and “Gold Coast,” but – and this is what makes the Windy City’s elites lose sleep at night – he is gathering momentum and support from many unions and community leaders and organizations. And it is entirely possible that he comes out on top when the ballots are counted on April 7.

Here’s why.

Cities are increasingly turning into battlegrounds, where different models – people versus neoliberal (corporate-elite friendly) – and their associated political coalitions clash. In recent years, The neoliberal model, of which Emanuel is a zealous advocate, is more and more encountering stiff and broad-based resistance. The few dissenters of yesterday are turning into the many today.

A telling example of this trend was the election of Bill de Blasio in New York’s mayoral race in the fall of 2013. De Blasio, who unhesitatingly described himself as a progressive, decried the city’s widening income inequality, gentrification, and the rise of two New Yorks – one living in grand style, the other struggling to make ends meet. He also opposed racist “stop and frisk,” policing, the shrinkage of affordable housing, the lack of pre-kindergarten programs, and the unfair system of taxation that favors Wall Street and the 1 percent.

Supporting his candidacy was a diverse coalition that grew rapidly in the course of the campaign (something that Garcia’s supporters should take inspiration and draw lessons from). So much so that it was evident in the final days of the campaign that de Blasio would win by a landslide as part of a broader progressive electoral sweep.

The outcome was an emphatic rebuff of the previous two mayors – the billionaire Michael Bloomberg and the utterly reactionary Rudy Giuliani. But our analysis can’t be left here. It was, if we dig a little deeper – and we don’t have to dig too far – a repudiation of pro-corporate neoliberalism and the rise of the neoliberal city, which were hallmarks of both Bloomberg’s and Guiliani’s governing strategy and style.

In voting overwhelmingly for de Blasio, New Yorkers said “enough” to a form of political and economic governance that favors commercial, real estate and banking interests, facilitates gentrification and the reconfiguring of urban space to suit the interests and sensibilities of the 1 percent, scales back public sector services, jobs, and union contracts, ramps up “aggressive” policing, promotes privatization of functions that previously were in the public sphere, especially public education, and deepens inequality.

As much as de Blasio’s landslide victory was a repudiation of neoliberal urban governance, it was in equal measure an affirmation by voters, even if not fully articulated, that they have a right to a livable, vibrant, just, and sustainable city (much like people have a right to a job, livable wage, health care, housing, equality, etc.).

Moreover, “right” in this instance, much like the right of workers to the products of their social labor, doesn’t rest on some abstract notion of justice, nor some general societal obligation (although society has such obligations). Instead it is grounded in material practices and activities of millions of New Yorkers who inhabit and create and recreate the city each and every day with labor and neighborly reciprocity in a multitude of paid and unpaid forms. That includes everything from raising children to transporting people, constructing skyscrapers, tunnels, bridges and roads, providing countless services, taking care of the sick and the elderly, creating art and culture, organizing sports, maintaining parks and green spaces, cleaning up environmentally hazardous sites, helping neighbors and coworkers, addressing disabilities needs, going to church, educating the young, engaging in politics, and on and on.

I wondered at the time of the New York elections if Emanuel, seeing the sea change that carried de Blasio into the mayor’s office, might consider a political reset in order to better position himself for a successful run for a second term in Chicago’s elections, which were coming into view. After all, he had to know that his closing of so many public schools was causing widespread discontent in the city as was his relentless push to turn over schools to private charter operators and contract out school janitorial services to major corporations.

Moreover, Emanuel’s refusal, despite promises, to reform the city’s notorious Tax Incremental Finance program and to stop the flow of public monies to subsidize corporations (Hyatt Hotels in Hyde Park) and big real estate interests also was leaving more and more people wondering if Emanuel was the right person to lead the city.

Most people in this situation would adjust their persona and policies to this brewing storm, but not Emanuel. As if to prove that it’s difficult to teach an arrogant, tone deaf, and well-heeled dog new tricks, he pressed fast-forward on his neoliberal plans and made no effort to tamp down his grating, me-first personality. Chicago’s elites hailed his intransigence and determination to stay the course. But many ordinary Chicagoans, when given the chance to express their displeasure in the first round of the mayoral primary in February, denied Emanuel a simple majority, thus forcing the April runoff with second-place finisher Garcia.

While it is uncertain if Emanuel will have to pay the ultimate price for being the loyal soldier for Chicago’s elites when voters go to the polls again, the contested nature of this election no matter what the outcome signifies the growing opposition to economic inequality, neoliberalism, and the neoliberal city, an emphatic assertion of the people’s right to a city, and a scaling up of the class and democratic struggle.

It has already given a shot in the arm to the broader movement and the progressive and left currents within that movement in Chicago as well as elsewhere. And it is serving notice, as did the election in New York, on the centrists in the Democratic Party as well as the right-wing-dominated Republican Party that the political dynamics that have shaped the country’s trajectory over the past 35 years are changing.

Admittedly, these changes don’t yet possess transformative power – that is, the power to deeply, boldly, and creatively consolidate a new governing model that accents people’s self-organization and needs, whether at the local, or, even more so, at the national level.

Nor are the changes in political dynamics in Chicago and New York – or Newark, N.J., Richmond, Calif., Seattle, or Los Angeles – observable in Lubbock, Texas, or Lincoln, Neb., or Cincinnati, Ohio, or, for that matter, Detroit. In other words, the process isn’t broad in scope either.

And yet, I can’t help but believe that the anger at the growing inequality and outlandish class privilege on display in a growing number of cities is also felt by tens of millions elsewhere. Maybe not to the same degree, maybe not to the same extent, but expressing nonetheless a rejection of the economic orthodoxy – neoliberalism – of the past four decades, ideologically embraced and politically facilitated by the top circles of the Democratic Party as well as every section of the Republican Party.

Of course, nothing that has happened in Chicago, New York, or anywhere else puts on the back burner in any way the overriding imperative of decisively defeating right-wing extremism. For the fact is the crisis bedeviling Chicago and other cities – not to mention the country as a whole – cannot be fully, or even significantly, resolved without politically crushing this extreme reactionary political movement that now commands the Republican Party. And it is both very mistaken and dangerous to think that islands of urban progressivism can be established in a surrounding and churning sea in which the most zealous and adventurist prosecutors of a form of neoliberalism that disdains even a passing rhetorical nod to democratic rights, social protection, or equality are increasingly riding the biggest waves.

But that discussion, as important as it is, is for another day. Right now, the challenge in Chicago, if New York’s experience is any guide, is to expand and deepen the cross-class, multi-racial, and multi-ethnic coalition that supports the insurgent campaign of Chuy Garcia.

While a strategy of reaching and mobilizing black, brown, and progressive white voters underpinned the historic 1983 election of Harold Washington, the city’s first Black and undeniably great mayor, a different strategy – and a far more likely winning strategy this time – is necessary to carry Garcia across the finish line in the first place.

A lot has happened since that historic night of Washington’s victory three decades ago. We’ve seen the election and reelection of an African American president that many thought impossible, by a multi-racial coalition of voters; the growing rejection of racism by significant sections of white people; the changing attitudes and new initiatives in the labor movement to address racism inside and outside of its ranks; the greater resonance of class in the thinking of working people, and more. And to this we should add the broad coalition of labor – the Chicago Teachers Union in the first place – communities of color and many of their leaders, reform democrats, independents, progressives, and sections of the left that are the mainstays of Garcia’s campaign.

This argues for an even more inclusive strategy than was employed to elect Harold Washington. In particular there is no good reason to write off a large section of white people without a struggle and in doing so run the risk of conceding many of them to Emanuel. That’s not a formula for success.

Yes, many white people, bombarded by the subtle and not so subtle racist message that Garcia doesn’t have the political or intellectual heft to be mayor – “not up to the challenge,” will have to be convinced that Chuy’s worst day as mayor will be better than Rahm’s best day. The way to do that isn’t by righteously exclaiming on the “backwardness” of white people, but rather by persuading them on the basis of their experience, common sense, better angels, and deeply felt and existential needs for jobs, livable wages, quality public education, and so on, that Chuy Garcia is best equipped on the basis of his vision, experience, and ordinary roots to lead the city.

And when combined with sustained efforts to acquaint voters throughout the city – North Side, West Side, South Side – with Garcia and his vision as well as mobilize those same voters to go to the polls on Election Day, Chicago will make history again in electing Jesus Garcia as it did decades ago when Harold Washington was elected. And in doing so the people of that great city will take another vital step to reclaim their city and future.

Photo: Chicago mayoral candidate Jesus “Chuy” Garcia’s at a televised debate with current Mayor Rahm Emanuel, March 26. Jesus “Chuy” Garcia for Chicago, Facebook.

Political Independence of Parties and Gus Hall

By A. Shawgushall


Gus Hall (October 8, 1910 – October 13, 2000) was a leader and Chairman of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and its four-time U.S. presidential candidate. During the Great Repression of the 1940s and 50s, Hall was indicted under the Smith Act by the bourgeois regime in Washington D.C. and was sentenced to eight years in prison. After his release, Hall led the CPUSA for over 40 years, often taking an orthodox Marxist-Leninist stance which intensely annoyed most of his comrades.


The concept of political independence varies when applied to individuals, groups, or states. With individuals, a candidate is independent when he or she is not affiliated with any political party. Again, an independent voter is a voter who does not align him or herself with a political party. However, proletarian parties commonly called their candidates “independent” as long as their candidate isn’t affiliated with a bourgeois party or another proletarian party. In the USA, when “independent” is applied to a group, it seems to mean a group that is separate from the two old bourgeois parties [the DP and GOP], even if the group is somehow affiliated or allied with other third parties.



AIMING TO WINAngela-Davis-with-Gus-Hall



“In every case the Party should focus on offices it aims to win — if not [this year] then over the course of the next few elections,” Gus Hall wrote in “Unity! The Only Way.”


Hall applied this rule in 1988 to CPUSA, but it applies today to a number of political organizations.


Under the rule which he formulates, Hall must have concluded that his party should not have focused on any of his four campaigns for president of the USA.


What does “in every case” mean?


It means in no case should a left party focus on offices it doesn’t aim to win. It also means in no case should a party focus on offices it doesn’t aim to win either now or over the course of the next few elections.


“Such a proposition requires a basic change in how we conduct our campaigns,” Hall wrote.


Why is this change in the conduct of campaigns basic?


Before the aiming-to-win strategy, campaigns aimed to lose or aimed merely to run. If so, then an aiming-to-win strategy is indeed a basic change.


Does the rule about a party not focusing on campaigns where the candidate can’t win, either now or over the course of the next few elections, apply also to Communists?


Hall’s answer to the question of whether the rule applies to Communists is tough to interpret, even though the rule applies to every case and a Communist candidate is a case.


Here’s Hall’s answer:


“The fact is we have now overcome the barrier that ‘Communists cannot be elected.’ Even though our candidates’ votes and constituencies took a big leap in recent elections, most of us still do not think in terms of Communists actually getting elected. This is the necessary next stage in the development of Communist campaigns,” Hall wrote.


Hall seems to be saying that Communists have recently won a number of elections, running as candidates of the two old bourgeois parties. These wins prove that the alleged barrier “Communists cannot be elected” is false. But most Communists still don’t see these wins as Communists actually getting elected; they see these wins as candidates of bourgeois parties actually getting elected. In other words, most Communists want and expect Communists to run as Communists, not as candidates of bourgeois parties.



Under the rule, as formulated above by Hall, a Communist running openly as a Communist also has to win because winning is the key thing, not merely running or losing. Further, a winning Communist, running openly as a Communist, satisfies the rule. A winning Communist, running as a candidate of a bourgeois party, also satisfies the rule.


But a losing Communist, no matter how he/she runs, is just a loser.


Lenin dealt with phony participation in political struggle in his “Leftwing Communism” and his “What Is to Be Done.”  Obviously, aiming to lose is phony participation. Lenin called it a baby disease, an infantile disorder, pseudo anarchism, quasi-anarchism, and semi-anarchism.




Hall rejects the explanation that the label of Communist is the chief cause of a loss when the candidate exposes his or her Communist affiliations.


Hall points to the political incompetence and bungling of Communists as the main cause of the losses when Communists campaign openly as Reds.


“Generally, we are good on program, but come up very short on the mass organization side of running campaigns … To reach a new, higher stage we must raise the level of professionalism in the use of media, literature, posters, and in fund raising. We must master campaign organization techniques to identify, mold and hold a Communist electoral constituency.

We must establish an apparatus to get out the vote on election day. We must focus more on door-to-door canvassing and involving non-Party volunteers,” Hall wrote, explaining why Communists who run as Communists lose.


Hall wanted Communists to master all of the specialties of the art of campaigning, even though he didn’t mention all of the specialties in the preceding paragraph.


Hall understood that amateurs are unlikely to prevail over political professionals.


Hall’s proposals were unwelcomed but quietly tolerated in 1988 when he presented them. They haven’t been acted on at all since their 1988 presentation.




Today, revolutionaries must aim to win, not the foolishness of much of the US Left of aiming to lose or aiming merely to run.


Revolutionaries can win either running as revolutionaries or running as supporters of political tendencies other than revolutionary.


The label of revolutionary pinned on a candidate is usually not the principal cause of a loss at the polls


The principal cause is that the advanced elements of the electoral base in the USA are untrained and misdirected.


Most of the US Left are incapable of doing anything.


Here is a video of Gus Hall

Partido Comunista rechaza maniobras militares en Puerto Rico

  • El Partido Comunista de Puerto Rico rechaza la presencia militar de EE.UU. en la isla caribeña.

    El Partido Comunista de Puerto Rico rechaza la presencia militar de EE.UU. en la isla caribeña. | Foto: EFE

Publicado 13 marzo 2015 (Hace 21 horas 38 minutos)

La organización comunista asegura que esas maniobras responden a un ensayo para luego imponer el orden militar cuando se desplome el poder colonial impuesto por Estados Unidos en Puerto Rico.

El Partido Comunista de Puerto Rico (PCPR) rechazó este viernes los ejercicios militares que realizará la próxima semana la Guardia Nacional con la presencia de soldados estadounidenses.

A través de un comunicado, la organización comunista lamentó que Puerto Rico sea utilizado como el centro de entrenamientos militares de Estados Unidos.

“Resulta inexplicable, desde la perspectiva humanitaria, que se militarice a Puerto Rico ante eventuales catástrofes naturales, cuando la respuesta del Estado (federal y colonial) debería ser simulacros de las agencias encargadas de protección y socorro de la población”, subraya la comunicación.

El PCPR lamentó que la denominada Operación Respuesta Borinqueña conformada por soldados puertorriqueños y unos mil efectivos de los estados de Nebraska, Vermont, West Virginia y Washington sean enviados a realizar esas actividades en vez de promover la paz y la integración entre los pueblos.

Asimismo, el partido advirtió que estos ejercicios que se realizarán en San Juan (capital de Puerto Rico) y otros municipios del país caribeño responden a las recientes amenazas del presidente estadounidense Barack Obama contra Venezuela.

“Los ejercicios se realizan como parte de la política norteamericana de usar a Puerto Rico como plataforma de lanzamientos de agresiones militares contra los gobiernos de Latinoamérica”, añade el texto firmado por la dirección del PCPR.

Picket tomorrow against Harper’s so-called anti-terror bill
Communist Party of Canada – Manitoba
387 Selkirk Ave. Winnipeg MB R2W 2M3
(204) 586-7824 –

February 25, 2015

Picket tomorrow against Harper’s so-called anti-terror bill

A picket has been organized against the Conservative Party’s misnamed anti-terror bill:

Shelly Glover, MP’s office
Thursday, Feb. 26, 4:30 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
213 St. Mary’s Road (near Traverse)

All groups are welcome, including to speak and co-sponsor.

* * * * *
Harper’s legislation will enable the RCMP and CSIS to crack down on all resistance in Canada, against democratic and workers’ struggles.

There is no “balance” in the bill. It gives free reign to the government’s security apparatus at the same time it attacks Canadians’ rights and freedoms.

There is no evidence that the government needs to give such power to secret, actually political police. Historically, such legislation has always been used once passed:  to outlaw socialist parties (1918), crush the Winnipeg General Strike (1919), outlaw the Communist Party (1931, two years before Germany and Japan, and 1939), and imprison hundreds of innocent people during the FLQ crisis.

As found by the Royal Commission on Certain Activities of the RCMP (1977), even without such laws the police carried out serious criminal activities against progressive organizations, including the Communist Party, many of which remain unpublished and secret to this day.

So it can safely be said, the bill is unnecessary and is intended to create fear and conformity among Canadians with the Conservative Party’s definition of terrorism.

The Communist Party is wholly opposed to terrorism as a tactic in the mass struggles for democracy and socialism, but the Conservative government is using this bill to instill fear in the general public and to draw attention away from its own pro-terror policies such as bombing Yugoslavia and Libya, helping Ukraine’s pro-Nazi regime which is terrorizing its population and banning the Communist Party there, and deporting U.S. military veterans who are opposed to war crimes to serve lengthy sentences in U.S. military prisons – pursuing a pro-war crime agenda.

The Communist Party completely rejects the idea that this bill is needed to counter so-called “eco-terrorism” or the serious, false charge against Aboriginal rights activists that they are terrorists. The proven use of agents provocateurs in anti-globalization protests by police shows who are the real criminals.

The bill targets the resistance to corporate control of Canada.

The bill’s first target is the international unity of working people, Arab and non-Arab, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, Russian and non-Russian.

Who are the Conservative party’s targets-of-choice, the targets of RCMP wrongdoing, jailings and outright banning since the beginning of mercantile and settler colonialism, the Red River Resistance and the Winnipeg General Strike?

Politically, it is socialist parties, especially the Communist Party which supports the resistance against corporate influence and domination and works to build the international unity of working people and oppressed nations (outlawed 3 times).

In terms of the people’s resistance, it is the trade union movement and oppressed nations, Aboriginal peoples and Quebec’s movement for self-determination and equality.

The anti-terror legislation is certain to broaden the dirty tricks, secret police wrongdoing and repression.

That is why the Communist Party in Winnipeg will hold a picket to protest the new bill this week.

Everyone is invited to bring their signs and messages of resistance.

Vive la resistance,
Penner-Bethune Club, Communist Party of Canada

Information: Darrell Rankin (204) 792-3371

US Trains Ukrainian Neo-Nazis

Feb. 14, 2015

Translated by Mark Burton

This spring the United States will begin training and arming the Ukrainian National Guard: this was officially confirmed by the European Command of the United States that stated that the program is part of the initiative of the Department of State to assist Ukraine in implementing “internal defense.”

The funding, already authorized by Congress, comes from a special fund from the Pentagon and the State Department to “provide training and equipment to foreign security forces,” so that “the partner countries may confront important challenges to the national  security of the United States.”

The training mission in Ukraine serves to “demonstrate US commitment to the security of the Black Sea and the value of the US forces deployed in forward positions.”

The units of the National Guard of Ukraine, according to rough estimates, number 45-50 thousand including volunteers, will be trained by US military instructors in Yavoriv near Lviv, about 50 km from the Polish border.

The National Guard, established by the government in Kiev in March 2014 with an initial funding of US $ 19 million, has incorporated Neo-Nazi military formations, already trained by NATO instructors for the putsch of Kiev (as shown in a photographic documentation of militant Neo-Nazis trained in Estonia in 2006 [1]). The Donbass, Azov, Aidar, Dnepr1, Dnepr2 and other battalions, that are the shock forces of the National Guard, are made up of both Neo-Nazi Ukrainians, and Neo-Nazis from other European countries.

The atrocities they have committed against civilians of Russian nationality are widely documented by video and eyewitness testimony (just type in Google “atrocities of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine”). But, despite the fact that Amnesty International has accused the government of Kiev of  being responsible for war crimes committed by these battalions, the US continues to support this regime, even giving it armored vehicles. The United States government now empowers Kiev with a  training program and more armaments.

These actions fall within the ”Operation Atlantic Resolve “, launched by the European Command of the United States military to “reassure our allies, in face of the Russian intervention in Ukraine, and as a deterrent to prevent Russia gaining regional hegemony. In the framework of the growing deployment of US forces in Eastern Europe, the Pentagon sent “military experts to enhance the defensive capacity of Ukraine” and pledged an additional $ 46 million to provide “military equipment, including vehicles and night vision goggles.”

Washington is therefore already arming the forces of Kiev, even though Kiev is not actually receiving heavy weapons from the US, it may obtain them in any case from  the millions of dollars given to the Kiev regime. All this while Germany, France and Italy say they support a diplomatic solution and therefore are against the provision of arms to Kiev.

But at the same time at a summit in Brussels, these countries committed, along with Britain, Spain and Poland, to take on more responsibility in the formation of a NATO “Strike Force”, in the framework of a “Response Force”, made up of 13 to 30 thousand men and equipped by six centers of command and control in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. While the US, in preparation for the summit in Minsk on Ukraine (which deliberately did not participate), stated, though the Secretary of State,  that among the allies “there are no divisions, we all agree that there can be no military solution. ”

But at the same time, training and arming the Ukrainian Neo-Nazis, the US fans the flames of war in the heart of Europe.

Source:  Il Manifesto (Italy)

On the Situation in Ukraine

Working Group of International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties

January 30-31, 2015

On the occasion of the meeting of the Working Group of the International Meetings of Communist and Workers’ Parties, in Istanbul on January 31-February 1, 2015, the participant parties signed the following statement:

Following a coup d’état in February 2014, state power in Ukraine was seized by openly fascist and bourgeois nationalistic forces, which kindled a civil conflict that turned into a bloody civil war. A war which results in the death of civilians including women, the elderly, and children. A war which led to a human catastrophe in Donbass. Thousands are dead, tens of thousands are wounded, more than a million are seeking asylum. Schools and kindergartens are destroyed.

The ruling oligarchic regime which relies on the financial and political support of the United States, the European Union and NATO, has unleashed a social genocide of the Ukrainian people.

The ruling regime in the Ukraine has established a severe censorship of the media, restricting access to objective information, propagating blatant lies and disinformation by the government structures at all levels.

The Communist Party of Ukraine harshly criticizes the oligarchic fascists which seized power in Ukraine, and demands an immediate ceasing of the fratricidal war. Because of this principled position, the Communist Party of Ukraine is being prosecuted and repressed.

The government is using all its might to destroy the Communist Party, to suppress the people’s will, to ban the Communist ideology as such – an attribute of all fascist and dictatorial regimes.

We call upon all Communist and workers’ parties to help and support the Communists and the working people of Ukraine in their fight against fascism and the oligarchy, in the struggle against international reaction and the regime in Kiev which does nothing to stop the fratricidal war and does not even follow the relevant international treaties which it signed.

Only the combined efforts of all progressive forces can prevent the horrors of war which the US and its allies have unleashed on the territory of Ukraine.

Workers’ Party of Belgium
Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB)
Communist Party of Cuba
The Progressive Party of the Working People (AKEL)
Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia
Communist Party of Greece
Communist Party of India
Tudeh Party of Iran
Lebanese Communist Party
Portuguese Communist Party
Communist Party of Russian Federation
Russian Workers’ Communist Party
Communist Party, Turkey
Communist Party of Ukraine