Talk:Communist state

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pre-move proposal discussion[edit]

Should this article be moved to 'Marxist–Leninist state' and why or why not? Read lead sections of 'Marxism–Leninism' (by definition pro-statist to pave the way for an eventual communist society that would be classless and stateless) and 'Communism' (by definition anti-statist, an oxymoron - 'stateless state'). I would therefore argue WP:PRECISE policy should take precedence over WP:COMMONNAME. -Vipz (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it is completely oxymoronic. Not to mention that there have been socialist projects that were not Marxist-Leninist in nature, although were/are still in fact ideologically communist, for example, Revolutionary Catalonia, EZLN-controlled Mexico, Post-Independence Tanzania, etc. digiulio8 (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with move to 'Marxist–Leninist state' per @Vipz (OP) and @digiulio8. -Gluonz (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes more sense TheUzbek (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz Since it doesn't seem there's been any opposition, should a formal move proposal be initiated? -Gluonz (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gluonz: I don't think it's worth initiating it at this time because it's going to get squashed by the "common name" argument, but you're free to act on your own accord. Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz 👍 -Gluonz (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vipz and Gluonz: What about moving the article to "Socialist state (Marxism–Leninism)"? --TheUzbek (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, North Korea's ruling party, the Worker's Party of Korea, is often described as communist but not Marxist-Leninist. Secondly, I don't think it's oxymoronic at all; "communist state" - or better yet "Communist state" quite clearly refers to a "form of government that combines the state leadership of a communist party, Marxist–Leninist political philosophy, and an official commitment to the construction of a communist society" - emphasis mine; there is fundamental reference to the ideology of Communism, not communism as a political reality. References to "political philosophy" and "commitment" clearly reinforce the emphasis on ideology. Zilch-nada (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you, the problem is that the majority here on Wikipedia don't. Just look at the infobox description of the government at People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Users would much rather want a "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian dictatorship" than a "Communist state", which is, for me, absolutely amazing! TheUzbek (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Venezuela not listed as Communist country?[edit]

I think it's pretty clear that Venezuela is also under a communist government due to the actions they have taken and are taking to this day. 186.15.23.55 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is an article on "communist state", not a list of countries that may or may not have been communist at some point. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's on a more appropriate list instead: List of socialist states#States with governing communist or socialist parties. –Vipz (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communist state → Socialist state (communism) – While "Communist state" is a good term used by scholars, the common people and many in the Wikipedia community refuse to link the articles of China, the USSR to this article, but rather to the much worse article "Socialist state", which is badly written and deals everything and nothing at the same time. The best way to deal with this is to create the article "Socialist state (communism)", which is as correct as "Communist state". Hopefully, more in the Wikipedia community will link to this article instead of "socialist state". An alternative title would be "Socialist state (Marxism–Leninism)", but I feel that the average reader does not really know what Marxism–Leninism is, but they do know what communism is. All communist states have officially adhered to Marxism–Leninism.

These states officially called themselves socialist states; no state has ever called themselves communist states. --TheUzbek (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support TheUzbek (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose current title is a WP:NATURAL and sources use it so no sense complicating it—blindlynx 15:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, why do articles on the USSR, China, et cetra, consistently link to socialist states? Why do constant discussions take place over the term communist state, which many believe to be an oxymoron and the consistent counter-argument that these states are socialist states? TheUzbek (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an issue with this title but rather of people's behaviour, This article is well sourced and is a good fork but perhaps people don't thinks so? could you link to some of these discussions?—blindlynx 15:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:China/Archive_16, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]
    Note that the "Government" description in the infoboxes uses the term "Communist state". I have changed it to "Communist state". The fact of the matter is that these states called themselves "socialist states" since the term communist state is an oxymoron (communism is generally believed to be stateless). TheUzbek (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its an issue when users link to the wrong article making it harder for our readers to get access to proper information. TheUzbek (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed but i don't think this is the ready for this porblem. The issue is that communism and socialism are different things sticking to official names or insisting that 'communism is stateless' both fail wp:v which isn't something we should address with a move that muddies things further—blindlynx 13:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But how does "Socialist state (communism)" "muddies things further". It uses the official designation of these states "socialist state" and uses communism to clearly signify we are speaking about states governed by communist parties? I would think it clarifies more than it muddies.
    I am open to other suggestions, but as things are it clearly doesn't work... TheUzbek (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think people will use the new title any more than this one, i don't know if there's an easy solution here unfortunately—blindlynx 16:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    here. I added communist state and a user has argued against the term. TheUzbek (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is another revert. I added communist state to the Polish People's Republic, and it was reverted based on this argument; "It wasn't a Communist State, if it was Communist, there wouln't be a State, because in an Communist society, there don't exist a State" TheUzbek (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, no reasoned rational provided. --Yorkporter (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That these states call themselves "socialist state" is not a reasoned rationale? No communist state has ever called itself a socialist state. TheUzbek (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't really understand the rationale. The present title appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME for this and is also WP:NATURALDIS.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I apologize, but the unwillingness of editors on the cited pages to reference the "Communist State" page sound like the problem, not this page. Agreed with Common Name concerns, I think prioritizing correctness in Marxist jargon over commonly-understood descriptors is unencyclopedic. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If certain WP editors "refuse" to link to the correct article, that is a behavioral matter that needs to go to ANI probably.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support; it would make the title less of an oxymoron. However, I think a title closer to “Marxist-Leninist state” would be preferable. –Gluonz talk contribs 15:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Communist state[edit]

Did you read my rationale, or did you revert for the sake of revert? Nothing in that text I removed about material deals with the "communist form of government". It should be moved to communism or the criticism of communism article. If you want to add information about criticism about the communist form of government, please do, its warranted! TheUzbek (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material you deleted pertains directly to the "communist form of government" and existing or formerly existing communist states, not communist ideology itself. This is why I found the mass deletion of this long standing material unjustified and restored it. For example: "Philipp Ther posits that there was an increase in the standard of living throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernisation programs under communist governments" was one passage restored. How is this not WP:DUE material for an analysis section in an article on Communist states?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does this paragraph deal with the communist form of government? It deals about victims of communist states, but not about the form of government of communist states. Don't you agree?

"Monuments to the victims of communist states exist in almost all the capitals of Eastern Europe and there are several museums documenting communist rule such as the Museum of Occupations and Freedom Fights in Lithuania, the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia in Riga, and the House of Terror in Budapest, all three of which also document Nazi rule.[155][156] In Washington D.C., a bronze statue based upon the 1989 Tiananmen Square Goddess of Democracy sculpture was dedicated as the Victims of Communism Memorial in 2007, having been authorized by the United States Congress in 1993.[157][158] The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation plans to build an International Museum on Communism in Washington. As of 2008, Russia contained 627 memorials and memorial plaques dedicated to victims of the communist states, most of which were created by private citizens and did not have a national monument or a national museum.[159] The Wall of Grief in Moscow, inaugurated in October 2017, is Russia's first monument for victims of political persecution by Stalin during the country's Soviet era.[160] In 2017, Canada's National Capital Commission approved the design for a memorial to the victims of communism to be built at the Garden of the Provinces and Territories in Ottawa.[161] On 23 August 2018, Estonia's Victims of Communism 1940–1991 Memorial was inaugurated in Tallinn by President Kersti Kaljulaid.[162] The memorial construction was financed by the state and is managed by the Estonian Institute of Historical Memory.[163] The opening ceremony was chosen to coincide with the official European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism.[164]"

"Philipp Ther posits that there was an increase in the standard of living throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernisation programs under communist governments" ... This is not about the form of government; form of government means the political system. This is about something else, like the merits of communism.
Just to be clear, I want to have a good criticism/analysis section, but it has to deal with the topic at hand.
TheUzbek (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The material is an analysis of policies carried out by communist states, some of which yielded positive results and others negative, and therefore is relevant to this section. You are bending over backwards attempting to demonstrate that this is somehow undue for this article, which I strongly disagree.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.J. Griffin That is your interpretation of my edits. Policies are not the same as form of government, and I think this should be moved to the criticism of communism article.
Would you add failed capitalist policies in the article liberal democracy? I think we both know the answer to this question :) But leave it be. I'll rewrite. TheUzbek (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments only seem to address that material in the Memory sub-section you want moved to criticism of communism, but you also deleted two paragraphs which appear before that sub-section on state policies which bolstered modernization, industrialization and an increased standard of living. That is certainly relevant here. If you wish to move the Memory section to Criticism of communist party rule I would not object to that, especially if there is consensus here on talk. However the two preceding paragraphs should remain as they are not criticisms and should not be moved there.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can agree on removing the memorials section, I say we do that. As for you're point on the standard of living and health that should be covered by articles devoted to that subject, such as Communism and health and Standard of living in communist states (or Economies of communist states).. Which are articles Wikipedia currently lacks. TheUzbek (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but until such articles are created the material is given its due weight here. In addition I think a brief summary of the memory section can be included here with a link to its new home in the other article if consensus allows for it to be moved.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America[edit]

You forgot america 174.105.174.105 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_state&oldid=1219500814"