Talk:Communist state/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Rewrite

I have finally posted a long-needed rewrite of the article. The old article was an off-topic mess. The term "communist state" refers to a political science definition of a government type, not a history of communist regimes. I discussed the need for a rewrite with Squiddy last December. If there are any questions about my edit, please refer to the relevant dicussion and the explanation I offered earlier:

[A]ll the problems with this entry is the fact that it has been straying way off topic for years. The topic of an article on "Communist state" is much more specialized than many users seem to realize. "Communist state" is a political science term used to refer to a regime in which state and party are embedded in each other. It is a formal state definition, in the same sense that the termconstitutional monarchy is another formal state definition. Sadly, this article was in much better shape (in the sense that the content was appropriate to the title) when it was a stub two and a half years ago. Unfortunately, back in the days of Wikipedia's ancient past, some editors did not understand what kind of content was germane to an article on a formal state definition and started to upload anticommunist commentaries on Soviet and PRC history, similar to the ones now described in their proper place at criticisms of communism. I'm tempted to follow Wikipedia:Be bold and remove the "criticism and advocacy" section at long last, given that the topic of the Communist state article is much more specialized than a general discussion of Communist ideology, Communist regimes, or Communist parties. 172 08:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

172 | Talk 22:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the rewrite. Does anyone have a good reason to revert? -- TheMightyQuill 03:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a rewrite is necessary, though I believe the article should also incorporate a brief history of Communist states (for the simple reason that any article on X form of government should tell the reader how that form of government developed through time). -- Nikodemos 04:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The focus of the article is a bit more specialized. This article deals exclusively with a system of government, as opposed to being more braodly focused on politics-- just as the article on federalism is on a system of government, not on the politics within a particular federal system, and just as monarchy is about a system, not a discussion on the politics of monarchies. A system of government refers to the formal structures and how they work. The main point to be addressed in an article on communist state involves the concept of government under Communism, in which party and state constitutional structures are embedded in each other. Details on the histories, and general characteristics of, politics within particular communist states belong in other entries. 172 | Talk 04:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it would be an amazing feat to talk about the political structure of a Communist state while omitting any mention of the way this structure developed in the Soviet Union. Surely any political science article must be placed under some sort of historical context (e.g. the monarchy article should mention the rise and fall of traditional European monarchies, as well as contain brief histories of monarchy on other continents). -- Nikodemos 04:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject of a system of government (e.g., monarchy, constitutional monarchy, republic, confederation, federal republic, etc.) refers to something more specific than the term "political structure." It refers to the formal constitutional structures of government. I agree the article should be expanded. However, we should all be careful, as it is easy to go off topic here. 172 | Talk 05:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No reason for this massive deletion of interesting info. If something is missing, add it to the old material.Ultramarine 10:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the correct article for the Marxist theory vision would be the Dictatorship of the proletariat article. "Communist state" is the common term for the states claiming to be Marxist-Leninst.Ultramarine 11:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe 172 intends this to be an article about the real historical aspects of Communist states, rather than Marxist theory. I was also under the impression that he hasn't finished his rewrite yet, which is why his version is a little on the short side. -- Nikodemos 19:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, did you even read the rewrite, or did you just glance at the headings? The "Marxist usage of the term section" is not a "Marxist theory vision" section-- quite the opposite. The section just clarifies that the term does not refer to the "dictatorship fo the proletariat," i.e. that Marxists do not use the term to refer to governemnt under Communism. Also, if you do not understand the reasons for the rewrite, see the December 2005 discussion I had with Squiddy, which established a consensus for a rewrite, although no one at the time was ready to devote the time to doing so. 172 | Talk 21:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No reason has been given for the massive deletions. Again, if something is missing or incorrect, correct or add. Do not delete, in particular the critical views.Ultramarine 13:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, reasons have been offered. How can we assume that you are editing in good faith when you insist that "no reason has been given" despite (1) the fact that you were already personally directed to the relevant discussion in which reasons for the rewrite are presented [1] and (2) despite the fact that the very first comment posted under this heading refers anyone interested to the relevant discussion offering reasons for the rewrite? [2] Reasons have been offered, and you definately should have seen them by now. If you are uninterested in responding to them, stop interfering in good-faith efforts to make this article readable, usable, accurate, and on-topic. 172 | Talk 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Another commendable rewrite by 172! The old article was a patchwork of original research and superfluous, if not irrelevant, historical details. It was verbose, lacked structure and focus, and had a ridiculously winded and sloppy "Criticism and advocacy" section, which was nothing more than a soapbox for anti-communist trolls. The article looked like it was heavily influenced by mainstream news reports or, worse, Lou Dobbs Tonight. Finally this article proposes a credible, concise definition of a frequently misconstrued term. -- WGee 23:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As an aiside, the credit goes mostly to Jtdirl, whose original text from way back to 2003 I mostly borrowed for the rewrite. 172 | Talk 07:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for ignoring NPOV by excluding critical views. I will continue to add them back.Ultramarine 09:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're outvoted 4:1 on this one Ultramarine. I understand your concern, but this isn't the right place for those arguments. It's a different issue. -- TheMightyQuill 21:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, qut dodging the issues on hand here. Respond to the explanations you were given earlier, or stop reverting. 172 | Talk 14:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pleae explain exactly why NPOV should be ignoted. I can see no explanation.Ultramarine 17:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the term "Communist state" is used when referring to the Communist states, and not only as an abatract concept.Ultramarine 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We can of course create a separate article for this important subject: How about the Criticisms of the Communist states and link to it from this article? Ultramarine 17:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, if you remember, half of the article criticisms of communism is already dedicated to criticisms of Communist states. The criticism section in this article was in fact composed of paragraphs copied almost verbatim from criticisms of communism. -- Nikodemos 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Ultramarine, at least partially. Current version [3] is much more informative. -- Vision Thing -- 20:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, please read the reply I'm making here to your three comments above in good faith. (1) First, your comment "Pleae explain exactly why NPOV should be ignoted [ignored?]" is cute. Nevertheless, since we are supposed to be writing a serious encyclopedia, let's keep our discussions serious on the talk pages. No one has proposed ignoring NPOV. Of course you are not going to see an 'explanation for ignoring NPOV.' Try to engage with your other editors without committing the loaded questions fallacy. (2) Re: Obviously the term "Communist state" is used when referring to the Communist states, and not only as an abatract concept. Of course, the term "Communist state," like many other technical terms with specific meanings, is used much less restrictively, but this usage is more informal. The term "state," for example, is often used in casual usage by non-specialists as if it were synonymous to terms such as "country," "nation," and "regime," and "government." Americans often use the term as if it were synonymous to the concept of political subunits within a federal system. Nevertheless, in the more strict usage of technical terms required in encyclopedias (especially in articles about the technical terms themselves), these terms have specific and distinct meanings. (3) Re: We can of course create a separate article for this important subject: How about the Criticisms of the Communist states and link to it from this article? The goal that underlies your proposal to create a separate article is good. You are interested in uploading criticisms of Communist party rule in 20th century Eastern Europe and East Asia, which is useful. However, you are putting them in the wrong place when framing your discussions in terms of communist states. Much of the material you're reverting back to here belongs in an article about criticisms of communist regimes. When used by specialists, the technical terms 'communist state' and 'communist regime' have specific, and distinct meanings. A "communist regime" refers more broadly to the set of political structures under which political institutions are ruled or dominated by a Communist party. This term encompasses the broad range of material to which you keep reverting back here at communist state. Much more specifically, a "communist state" refers to a definition of a particular idea of government that has been espoused by ruling Communist parties formulated by Western political scientists... If you want to write a criticisms of communist regimes, go ahead, so long as you get it right. Such an article could be thought of a sub-article of criticism of communism (which could be split up by category of the subject being criticized-- communist regimes, communist theory and ideology, communist parties and tactics, communist leaders, communist influence on art and humanities, etc.). 172 | Talk 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of unourced claims here. But I like your idea of an article called Criticisms of Communist regimes. Regardless, we should certainly link to it prominently from this article, since Communist state is the term in common use. Do you find this acceptable? Ultramarine 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of creating an article about Communist regimes. Lot of deleted material could be put there. -- Vision Thing -- 20:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, respond to the arguments above, or stop reverting. If you dispute any of the particular points I made above, I am willing and ready to support them by pointing you to external sources. The version of the article you keep reverting to is a totally off-topic mess for reasons I described above and must be replaced by something at least usable. My rewrite is way too brief, but at least it is a legitimate encyclopedic article discussing the subject at hand, unlike your reversion. Regarding your comment "we should certainly link [criticisms of communist regimes] ... prominently from this article," there is already a tag on a rewrite stating, For information regarding communism as a form of society, as an ideology advocating that form of society, or as a popular movement, see the main Communism article. We could also add criticisms of communism to that tag, along with "criticisms of communist regimes," if such an article is written and encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems acceptable to me. I would like to hear what Nikodemos think.Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please give me one day to attempt to write a new version of the Communist state article that integrates information about political science, history, and criticisms. -- Nikodemos 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do that, I suggest working within the framework of the rewrite and expanding the article from that basis. If you were to use the old article, it would turn into yet another unfocused discussion of the histories of communism in 20th century Eastern Europe and modern China. First, here are my suggestions for expanding the historical context. In order to offer useful historical context on communist state (a Western political science definition of the formal system of government-- executive, legislative and judicial-- under communism), trace the development of the constitutional configurations of the nominal governing body of the Soviet Union. The Soviet government was founded by the Congress of Soviets in Petrograd in late 1917, which designated the Council of People's Commissars as the legislative body of the Russian SFSR and the Central Executive Committee as the executive body of the government. The government of the RSFSR and later the USSR offically proclaimed itself the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Now, here are my suggestions for expanding the historical context. With an understanding of the definition of the subject at hand, offering context on criticisms of communist states is easy. The criticism simply boils down to the following: the Soviet government and later other Soviet-style governments claimed to be the dictatorship of the proletariat, but in reality they were were not. There are two important angles of criticism. First, Marxist critics argue the communist state founded in Russia noted councils elected by workers did not control the government-- the basis of the claim of being the dictatorship of the proletariat. Instead, they noted, the soviets quickly lost their power to the party and its politburo. Second, liberal critics fundamentally reject the idea of a system of government (executive, legislative and judicial) in which government is not formally independent of a political party. I trust we all understand liberal democracy enough to understand the importance of this separation, so I probably don't have to elaborate here. Finally, the article could clarify that the use of the term "communist state" by Western specialists is itself a criticism. As I'm sure we're all aware, he RFSR and later the USSR proclaimed itself a "socialist state" (the term "state" in Soviet parlence being distinguished from government to include not only the legislature, executive, and judical bodies but the government and all other political institutions by which the ruling class maintains the conditions of its rule), never a "communist state" by its own nominal standards. In short, although it's really easy to go off topic here, if you stay focused on subjects like Soviet constitutions, theories of government under Communism, and criticisms of those theories, and you'll probably be okay as you work on expanding the rewrite. 172 | Talk 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice; I'm sorry I couldn't follow it more closely. As I started writing, I realized that if I were to do a rewrite based on your suggestions, I would have to begin with a lot of research and it would take me far longer than one night. You may find my current rewrite unsatisfactory, but it was the best I could do in a few hours (and I'll be too busy in the next few days to work on it any more). I urge you to keep this article as it stands now, and to follow my suggestion of splitting the political science from the history within one article, rather than encouraging the proliferation of POV forks. Besides, think about it realistically: Unless you plan to police this article for the rest of your life, some new editors will inevitably start adding history and criticisms to it at some point in the near future. -- Nikodemos 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite is unsatisfactory. The issue here is not the history. It's not forks. If we are going to work on this article, we might as well get it right if we are going to put the time in it. There is no need to make things harder than they are. This is a simple article on a Western political science term to describe communism as a form of government-- the formal constitutional structures and how they work. Discussions of things like the current ruling coalition in Moldova or Cuban health care are totally off-topic. 172 | Talk 04:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly dislike this proposed fragmentation of information. We already have articles on Criticisms of communism and Criticisms of Marxism, and they considerably overlap. The proposed Criticisms of Communist regimes article would overlap with them even more.

The whole idea of having separate articles for the structure of Communist states and for the history of such states also seems unusual to me (not to mention the fact that "regime" is a pejorative term). I will attempt to forge a compromise by merging the two current versions of the Communist state article. -- Nikodemos 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They would probably overlap in practice-- not because they refer to exactly the same things but because because Wikipedia editors often don't know they're doing. In practice, it would likely result in something pretty bad. Nevertheless, my point is not so much to propose writing a "criticisms of communist regimes" article as to use it as an example to help the users restoring that awful, incoherent mess that in the old communist state article understand that the reason that they keep going way off topic here is because they don't understand that the formal state definition of the subject at hand here does not simply refer to general characteristics and discourses on communist rule or regimes. By the way, regime is NOT is a pejorative term. It is a technical term with a value-neutral and specific meaning. 172 | Talk 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I somewhat agree with 172 here, see above.Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If we know that pursuing a certain course of action would lead to a bad article in practice, then we should not pursue it. I agree that the old Communist state article was a mess - but I argue that we should try integrating the useful information from both versions rather than either reverting back and forth or creating forks. Note that there are no separate articles for democracy and democratic regime, or autocracy and autocratic regime. The political science definition of a form of government and the history of that form of government in practice are handled in the same article. -- Nikodemos 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason we don't have those articles is that ideas like "democracy," "authoritarianism," and "totalitarianism" are already regime typologies (the aforementioned being the standard tripartite distinction of regimes that dominated American political science during the Cold War era). The communist state article, however, attempts to offer a definition of a particular system of government, just as the terms constitutional monarchy, republic, federal republic, and confederation are used as other formal state definitions. Jtdirl made this same point over and over again on this very same talk page. I'm just reiterating here what he already said a while ago: OH boy. How many times and how many people have to explain it. A system of government deals with two issues: the constitutional structures and how they work. In this case, it involves the concept of government as held within communism and the manner in which in a Cs of government, unlike in liberal democracies party and constitutional structures are embedded in each other. The general characteristics of a political system belong in an article on the political system or on history, not here. Jeez. How come you have such difficulty grasping a fundamental characteristics of this article, when no-one else can? Your information if well written belongs in an article. But simply not this one because it is as irrelevant here as discussing George W. Bush's linguistic dexterity in an article on Federal Republics, or a piece on Prince Charles's sex life in an article on the constitutional concept of constitutional monarchy. ... ÉÍREman 14:30 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC) 172 | Talk 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, could you explain why the article does not comply with WP:NPOV? The Criticism and adovocacy section belongs in an article about Communist regimes, because it criticizes the policies of Communist parties rather than "the formal system of government—executive, legislative and judicial—under communism". I would thus be confused if you are disputing the article's neutrality because of the removal of that section. -- WGee 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In common use, Communist states refer to the states claiming to be Marxist-Leninist. No evidence has been presented otherwise. Thus, criticisms of them should be mentioned or there should be a link to an article about this. I am waiting for Nikodemos rewrite to see if this fixes the probelm, otherwise I will restore the criticisms or create a new article and link to it from this article.Ultramarine 00:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No evidence has been presented that Communist regime is the correct term. On the contrary, a quick Google search finds the term Communist state to be used in scholarly article, like this one: [4]Ultramarine 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In Google Scholar Communist states and Communist regimes are used in about equal number of scholarly works.Ultramarine 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what 172 has been trying to explain, or maybe you haven't bothered to read his explanations. "Communist state" is a legitimate term in political science; likewise, it is used by many political scientists, as your Google search has demonstrated. The problem is that "communist state" does not mean what you think it means: it does not refer to the policies of Communist parties, which is what you are trying to criticize. I don't think you have access to the scholarly articles you cited, but, if you did, you would probably discover that the authors are using "communist state" in the sense described by 172, the correct sense. -- WGee 00:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No evidence has been given for this. Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions. The article above is from a Political Science journal and use "Communist state" to refer Hungary and China, not to an abstract concept.Ultramarine 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I understand that you are upset that the criticism of Communist regimes has been removed from this article or "supressed", but nobody is stopping you from creating a Communist regime article and inserting the criticism there; in fact, 172 has recommended it, provided the article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. -- WGee 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I still don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm pretty disappointed, since earlier I started getting the impression that you were getting it, as I read your comments This seems acceptable to me. I would like to hear what Nikodemos think. Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) and I think I somewhat agree with 172 here, see above.Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I did not say that "communist regime" was the "correct term" and "communist state" was the "incorrect term." I am merely pointing to the basic definitions of the terms governement, regime, and state. Based on these elementary political science terms (terms have meanings independent of Google searches), a the goverment under communism refers to something much more specific (e.g., a facade of an insitution like the Council of People's Commissars) than the broader regime or political system. 172 | Talk 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, no evidence has been given for this. Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions. I have cited sources, you have not. But why not wait for Nikodemos rewrite and see how it turns out? Ultramarine 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, as I said earlier respond to my comments or stop revering. If you dispute any of the particular points I made above, I am willing and ready to support them by pointing you to external sources. Saying that I have not "cited sources" does not negate what I have been saying on this talk page. We are not required to cite sources on the talk pages. I know definitions of basic concepts in the social sciences off the top of my head. I don't need to refer to sourcebooks and textbooks when I work. But if the veracity of any of the factual claims or definitions I use is challenged by someone unfamiliar with them, I will defend them with textual references. 172 | Talk 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are required to do that. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. You have not provided any sources at all! Intangible 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing "my own point of view" or advocating anything other than reiterating basic political science definitions. If someone is skeptical about a comment I have made so far, I am ready to support my claim with any general sourcebook or textbook. It is silly to expect anyone to provide "citations" for elementary facts, especially on talk page discussions without first being asked to do so. If someone on Wikipedia claimed "the term 'communism' refers to a species within the 'bean' genus" and I disagreed with him, our claims are not equally invalid just because we both did not offer sources. We are not quite living in a world in which there is no established truth, only different opinions, after all. 172 | Talk 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Then do so, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop going in circles. You know that you have not told me what you want cited and you know it. It looks like you're just posting one-line comments on talk so that it looks like you have an excuse for reverting efforts to make this article encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not given any citations for any claims on this talk page. I have given that above.Ultramarine 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem lies in that there are two ideas of what the term communist state means. For 172 (and the majority of people discussing it here) it means a theoretical system of government. For you (Ultramarine) it may refer to individual governments, countries, whatever. Fine. However, since there is a conflict, and since you believe the term communist regime is synonymous with communist state and believe it to be equally prominent in journals, why don't you go work with that term? Since 172 and others specifically want to discuss the term communist state in a way that excludes the other less formal meanings (country/regime/etc) let them work on this article. There is no need for conflict at all - since regime could suit your purpose just fine, your persistence is creating debate where none is necessary. -- TheMightyQuill 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be POV to talk about "the communist state" and "communist regimes" in separate articles though. It is like talking about the Nazi state, their view of an organic, racist and imperialist state, but not talking about actual atrocities commited by Nazis. Similarly, empirical facts about communist states need to be presented in this article. Intangible 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a terrible comparison. Nazi were only in Germany, and it was only a shortlived regime without a chance to even set itself up with a defineable system of government. Take a look at Corporatism or Autocracy... they don't feature the mess found on this page. -- TheMightyQuill 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again. This is an article about a political science definition of a political science term "communist state." It is not an article presenting a communist point of view on government. In fact, the term "communist state" is was not used by Communist party ideologists, who instead designated the Soviet government the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the USSR a "socailist state." Also, dwelling on atrocities in an article on a form of a constitutional arrangement is silly, showing no understanding of the technical term the article is supposed to define. Doing so would be analogous to, e.g., criticizing the U.S. for slavery in the article on federal republic. It's off topic. Just define the technical term clearly and succinctly and spare the reader the unnecessary controversy and confusion. 172 | Talk 02:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Themightyquill, I don't think I entirely follow your distinction between my position from Ultramarine's position made above. A system of government deals with the constitutional structures and how they work formally. This is Poli Sci 101-- no disputing this claim. These constitutional structures were mere window dressing under communism. Nevertheless, they were based on a concept of government as held within the ideology of the ruling party in which in the constitutions of government, unlike in liberal democracies, party and state structures are embedded in each other. This claim is Comparative Gov 101-- again no disputing it. Now, there is going to be some variation in the exact wording of terms used to describe types of regimes and systems of governments. With the exception on terms dealing with major concepts like "state," "government," and "regime," the lexicon in political science is not totally standardized. This should not confuse anyone. Although in common usage, and even in many academic articles, it doesn't matter one bit whether we use the term "communist government" or "communist regime" or "communist state" at times, we are writing an encyclopedia article on a technical term referring to a subject that is not apparently very easy to grasp. So we have to be not only very careful but also very consistent with our usage of technical terms here. 172 | Talk 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of Communist State is a valid one, and only applies to the term "Communist State." You cannot write an article with your definition and simply substitute "regime" in place of "state." Correct? Ultramarine's definition of communist state, being the one in common usage, is totally synonymous with communist regime, communist government, etc, so he could write this article under the title "regime" without any problem. Correct? If you are talking about two different (though related) things, there's nothing wrong with having two different articles - it's not a POV split - so Ultramarine should do as you suggested and creat some sort of Communist regime article, and leave this one alone. -- TheMightyQuill 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the definition of communist state I am using (a form of government in which the state operates under the control of a Communist party) would fail as a definition of a "communist regime." Ultramarine's definition of communist state has not been made explict. I don't think he has put much thought in why he is reverting back to the old version of the article. Still, I agree with you, a lot of what Ultramarine is restoring in his reversions back to the old article could be written under the title "regime" with much fewer problems. Regarding a new article on "communist regimes," I suggest creating a main article on criticisms of communism#General critique of 20th century Communist regimes and summarizing that particular section of criticisms of communism as a good starting point. 172 | Talk 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

172, no matter how much I try, I cannot understand your insistence on separating the information about the theoretical framework of Communist states and the practical history of countries that operated under that framework. If we had so much material that the article was getting too long, I could understand the split. But as it stands now, with the political science side of it barely longer than a stub, there is no justification for splitting off the history into a different article. You are probably concerned that if we don't split it off, this article will degenerate into a mess. You are only half right. Yes, we should separate the political science and the history. But we should keep them as separate sections in the same article. -- Nikodemos 08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If my explanations don't make sense, read Jtdirl's in the early archives. Perhaps he is more clear than I am. This article is just about the political science definition for a term regarding communism as a form of government-- the formal constitutional structures and how they work. The subject of the article is the term itself. 172 | Talk 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

---

That's an interesting point though, that of "constitutional window dressing." There seems to be a subtle difference between a "communist state" and a "communist system." Furthermore, is a "communist system" the same as a "socialist system"? Some would say not, some would say it is [5]. Intangible 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're beginning to get it. In writing an article on a term used to define a constitutional form of something based on the model of the Soviet government is exactly on the topic of the formal constitutional facade, fig leaf, window dressing-- whatever the term to describe farces (like elections in the Soviet Union) typical of the communist system. As for your question on whether the "communist system" is the same as a "socialist system," it depends on the source. The Soviets did not use the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably and thus did not refer to their economic, social, and political systems as "communist." With Western specialists, the use of one term or another often in this case boils down to the preference of the author. One could refer to the Soviet economic system as "socialist," for example, based on the socialist economic order. Or one could refer to the Soviet political system as "communist," based on the fact of Communist Party rule. 172 | Talk 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should rename this article to Communist system instead? That encompasses basically everything that needs to be said under all these terms. Intangible 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See example this article [6], which talks about communist systems, not "communist states." You talk about constitutionality in the "communist state," but this is begging the question, since in practice this constitution was worth nothing. So you might as well keep your "communist state" article, but this will not prevent people from starting a communist system article that will talk about empirical evidence about those systems. Most of the old material in this article can then be transferred to the communist system article. Intangible 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, a communist system article gets us into the realm of doing the kind of theoretical modeling political scientists do, not encyclopedias. There are much more concrete subjects where the politics of communist rule can be discussed. I'm pretty disappointed that the important articles on concrete subjects (like, say, politics of the Soviet Union) get ignored, while an article like this (which is just supposed to be an entry on a technical term from Western political science) gets much more attention (probably because the term "communist" still gets people going even after the Cold War ended). 172 | Talk 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no excuse for excluding all criticisms of the Communist states. Either they should be mentioned in this article or prominently linked to. Also, please follow Wikipedia:Verifiability when making claims, like regarding claims of the correct defintion.Ultramarine 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop with the red herrings. You are not responding to any of the comments I have made at all. I'm beginning to wonder if either you or Nikodemos have even bothered to read my comments. Respond directly to any of the comments I have made above, or stop reverting. 172 | Talk 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

All your comments are unsourced personal opinions. Start following Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. That is a lie. You have not questioned the veracity of a single comment I have made. You probably haven't even bothered to read them. 172 | Talk 21:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have given sources for statements above. I and other editors have asked you to give sources for you claims.Ultramarine 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As Intangible pointed out: "From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. You have not provided any sources at all!"Ultramarine 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a red herring and you know it, because you are obviously not interested in having a constructive, civil discussion with me. You're just playing a game here to avoid dealing with the comments I have made. Citations are not required on talk pages. I will offer citations if you are skeptical about a particular point I have made. 172 | Talk 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, read the above. This is not a forum. Give sources for your claims regarding the correct defintion of Communist states. I have given sources which contradict your unsourced personal opinions.Ultramarine 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You could also point out my reply to Intangible, which he did not/could not dispute: I am not arguing "my own point of view" or advocating anything other than reiterating basic political science definitions. If someone is skeptical about a comment I have made so far, I am ready to support my claim with any general sourcebook or textbook. It is silly to expect anyone to provide "citations" for elementary facts, especially on talk page discussions without first being asked to do so. If someone on Wikipedia claimed "the term 'communism' refers to a species within the 'bean' genus" and I disagreed with him, our claims are not equally invalid just because we both did not offer sources. We are not quite living in a world in which there is no established truth, only different opinions, after all. 172 | Talk 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Frankly, your insistence that my comments can be ignored because I have not been offering citations in a talk page discussion is trollish. No one on Wikipedia uses talk pages like that. 172 | Talk 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. So am asking you to give sources, like you stated you would. Name, authors, and page numbers please, if not a direct link.Ultramarine 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your claim that I have offered only "unsourced personal opinions" while you have "given sources" for your definition is disgustingly dishonest. The edit history of the article makes clear that you are actually not disputing my definition of the term. Our competing versions of the article offer roughly the same wording for the same definition: Communist state is a term used by many political scientists to describe a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system. Your version My version The conflict is over the fact that you keep reinsering stuff which is totally off-topic b.s. by the standards of your own definition. Material on health care in Cuba, the environment of Central Asia, or elections in Moldova are OFF-TOPIC in an article on a form of government. 172 | Talk 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. You stated above you would provide sources if aksed. So am asking you to give these sources now, like you stated you would. Name, authors, and page numbers please, if not a direct link. Regarding the crticisms of the Communist states, deleting them violates NPOV.Ultramarine 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue of "properly referenced material" is a red herring because we are not even disputing the definition! Based on your version of the article, by the standard of your own definition (not my "unsourced personal opininion" definition or whatever you call it), the subject of the article is a political science definition for a particular form of government. [7] This article is not the place for criticisms of communism. I know you like uploading anticommunist material. I happen to agree with your politics, but our political agendas should not get in the way of writing an encyclopedia. Given the subject of the article at hand, the stuff on this history of communist rule and "crticism and advocacy" of communism is completely off topic. 172 | Talk 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You stated you would give sources for you claims if asked. So where are they? We can argue forever without sources. I argue that "Communist state" includes the real-world Marxist-Leninist states and have given a source to a political science journal using the term thus. Note that I would find it acceptable, as stated before, to prominently link to another article with these criticisms, like Criticisms of Communist regimes or Communist regimes. Do you find this acceptable? Ultramarine 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that in your very last edit you added a link to the Criticisms of communism article which is good. Still, much interesting material, not criticisims, is still lost. How about moving that to Communist regimes if you do not like it in this article? I see no reason for deleting this material from Wikipedia completely.Ultramarine 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Which claims are you referring to? Be specific. You say, I argue that "Communist state" includes the real-world Marxist-Leninist states and have given a source to a political science journal using the term... Alright, I haven't disputed this, so what's the point? Of course what you call "real-world Marxist-Leninist states" are described as "communist states." I don't think you're asking me for a source for my definition of the term "communist state" because you're using the same definition. By the standard of the definition you offer in your own reversions, a "communist state" refers to a political science term describing a form of government. Do we disgree on what constitutes a form of government? I say a form of government refers to the formal constitutional strucutres of government and how they work. This definition would be clear to anyone who has taken comparative government 101. But if you need clarifications on the difference between a "government" and a "regime," I'll be happy to point you toward some basic reading material on politics. To be honest, I don't think we're disputing any definitions here. The dispute stems from the fact that you keep restoring irrelevant material on the history of communist regimes and criticisms of communist rule. Again, the material you keep restoring in your reversions is irrelevant in an article on a term describing a form of government. For example, would you agree that criticisms of the politics of the U.S. belong in an article on federal republic (another article on a political science term describing a particular form of government)? Or would criticisms of the politics of the UK be relevant in an article on constitutional monarchy (again, another article on a political science term describing a particular form of government)?

Regarding your final question, How about moving that to Communist regimes if you do not like it in this article? Fine. I can agree to working out something like this, so long that any material in the end finds itself in an article where it would actually be germane to the subject at hand. I won't salvage the old material myself because I consider it too poorly written. But if you want to dump it somewhere else, I won't stop you. 172 | Talk 03:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I am now ready to restore the rewrite. I found a place for the old material. I inserted it in criticisms of communism in order to summarize the sections criticizing communist regimes. [8] Then, I move the text summarized in criticisms of communism to a new subarticle on criticisms of communist regimes. 172 | Talk 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nikodemos' revision

I basically restored my last version, except that I kept the lists of communist states. [9] I know that you didn't fully restore the old version, but I still have some problems with your revisions:

1. The list of defunct communist states has the potential to become (or already is) a hub of original research. While the well known communist states are widely believed to merit the label, the more obscure ones may not fit the definition of a communist state—were "the institutions of the state and of the party intimately entwined"? I don't know certainly, and I'm not sure that you know certainly either; thus I'm skeptical of the veracity of the list. Moreover, I thought that this article was intended to discuss the formal state structures of communist states, rather than the states themselves. Nevertheless, I'll allow the list to remain for now, since I gather that its removal is quite controversial and would like to develop a consensus.
2. "... and declares its allegiance to the principles of Marxism-Leninism." As the case of North Korea demonstrates, it is not necessary for a communist state to espouse Marxism-Leninism (North Korea abandoned the ideology in favour of Juche).

It is impossible to define a Communist state without reference to Marxism-Leninism. One cannot simply define a Communist state as a "one-party state ruled by a Communist party", for the simple reason that many Communist states were not ruled by parties officially calling themselves "Communist" (e.g. the Socialist Unity Party of Germany or the Polish United Workers' Party), and there are also numerous cases of Communist states with more than one legal political party (see, for example, National Front (Czechoslovakia)). -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course I know that; I was just pointing out that there are exceptions to that rule. Notice that I never removed the reference to Marxism-Leninism; I merely noted that the espousal of Marxism-Leninism is the norm rather than the rule. -- WGee 01:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I also edited the first paragraph in my version of the article to say that Communist states proclaim their allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof. -- Nikodemos 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Très bien. -- WGee 09:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. "What separates Communist states from other one-party systems is the fact that . . . ." This paragraph is not the most serious of my concerns; but should we actively try to distinguish a communist state from a generic dictatorship, assuming that the reader will conflate the two things? Since the first paragraph unambiguously defines a communist state, I would think that this paragraph is redundant. Based on the definition, readers should be able to make the distinction themselves, and I expect that they will.

Better to have too much information than too little. And, in any case, the definition of a Communist state (as it stands now) leaves a lot of room for overlap between Communist states and other types of dictatorship. -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. "Not every country ruled by a Communist Party is defined as a ‘Communist state.’" Again, I think this distinction is unnecessary, since there is no ambiguity in the article's definition of the term. As with the last paragraph, my concern is with the quality of the prose (redundancy) rather than the factual accuracy of the information—not a grave matter.

Again, better to have too much information than too little. Experience with this article shows that most readers (or at least most new readers who comment on the Talk page for the first time) come in with the ingrained assumption that any country ruled by a Communist Party is a Communist state. We have had dozens of requests to list Moldova as a Communist state, for example. -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. "Marxists define 'communism' as a form of society that abolishes private property, social classes, and the state itself. But no Communist Party-run government ever abolished social classes or the state, and private property was restricted but never fully eliminated. Therefore, since Communist Parties claimed to follow Marxism-Leninism (which is a variant of Marxism), they could not and did not call their countries 'communist'. I don't think that this elaboration is necessary. 172's revision succinctly and accurately explained that the term "communist state" is an oxymoron because communism is a form of social organization in which the state would have "withered away". There's no need to discuss whether or not communist states actually abolished social classes and private property, as that is difficult to determine in some cases. The conflict between theory and practice would require a degree of elucidation that is beyond the scope of this article.

Again, we hit the "no need to discuss" issue... I believe there is a need to discuss this, and given the very small size of this article right now, I do not see how a little more information could do any harm. -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

1. "The merger of party and state was never an official part of the system of government that existed in Communist states. Officially, the state was independent from the party, and the institutions of the state had sole authority to govern the country." If the role of the Communist Party as a vanguard is enshrined in the constitution, does that not mean that the party is officially merged with the state?

-- WGee 04:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Constitutionally, the State and Party were supposed to have different roles. In practice, they played the same role. -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to differ on that one. Note, for example, Article 121 of Cuba's constitution: "The courts constitute a system of state bodies which are set up with functional independence from all other systems and they are only subordinated to the National Assembly of People’s Power and the Council of State." Et voila, state institutions (the judiciary) and party institutions (the National Assembly and the Council of State, which are essentially branches of the Communist Party) are officially merged. Also note Article 5, which is actually a more appropriate example: "The Communist Party of Cuba . . . is the highest leading force of society and of the state." The Communist Party is thus described, in an official document, as an extension (a "force") of the state. The constitutional enshrinement of the Communist Party as the leading force of society and of the state offically paves the way for the amalgamation of the party and the state. -- WGee 09:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I will remove the sentences claiming that the State and Party were not officially merged. Clearly this is a disputed issue, and it is not particularly important in any case (whatever the de jure situation happened to be, the State and Party were de facto merged). -- Nikodemos 20:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments reinforce the notion that I had earlier, that it might be best to rename this article to Communist system. Intangible 04:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WGee: Was there a reason you nixed my mention of Belarus and Turkmenistan and why they might be considered Communist states by some? Calbaer 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because the suggestion that Belarus and Turkmenistan are communist states is original research and false. Neither of them are controlled by nominal Communist Parties that espouse Marxism-Leninism; neither of them have constitutions which declare the state's allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or which guarantee the Party's preponderance as a vanguard. Although the two regimes have continued many of the economic and political policies of their Soviet predecessors, this article discuss formal state structures only, not regimes. -- WGee 06:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

...which is why I said that they're not considered Communist states for the article, even though there are more operational differences between China and the USSR than those states and the USSR. Calbaer 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the last sentence of your revision. Nevertheless, why should we discuss states that are not even run by nominal Communist Parties? It's glaringly evident that such states could not possibly fit the definition of communist state; thus the disclaimer is superfluous. Moreover, by asserting the similarity of Belarus and Turkmenistan to their Soviet predecessors, we are opening up a debate that is beyond the scope of this article. And, again, your disclaimer concerns the regimes of those states rather than their formal constitutional structures. -- WGee 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; I just wanted to make it more clear that the label "Communist" is self-imposed and not necessarily reflective of state operations. Calbaer 21:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WGee, I urge you to reconsider the policy of reverting back to 172. I agree that the constitutional structure of a Communist state should not be conflated with the historical regimes that have ruled Communist states, but neither should we ignore the connection between the two. Again, I must point out that there is nothing wrong with having a history of republics in the republic article, or a history of monarchies in the monarchy article.

In any case, at the very least I ask you to not revert my edits to the introduction and the Usage of the term section. You reason for reverting was that the information I added is unnecessary. I believe it is very much necessary, and having too much information is always better than having too little. I've also made a few corrections that I believe should be kept (for instance, not all multi-party democracies are liberal democracies; thus a Communist state should be contrasted with a multi-party system in general). -- Nikodemos 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy regarding the republic and monarchy articles is incorrect because, just like this article, those articles pertain to a formal system of government. So neither this article nor those should discuss the politics that arose out of those systems of government, only the constitutional structures themselves. For example, the following paragraph is irrelevant to this article because it deals with the regime of the USSR: "In the late 1920s, the faction led by Joseph Stalin managed to achieve supremacy over the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. . . ." Unless you explain how Stalin's regime affected the state structure of the Soviet Union—that is, the formal relationship between the state and the Communist Party—then that paragraph has no place in this article. That said, I wouldn't oppose the history section if it discussed the history of the development of the Communist state rather than the history of Communist regimes. In other words, the history section currently chronicles the history of states that were called "communist states" (and thus performs exactly the same fuction as the History of series), whereas I would like the section to chronicle the constitutional developments that caused the party to become embedded in the state, or which altered the relationship between the state and the party.

Regarding the prose: so far nobody has made explicit their confusion as to the meaning of the term communist state, suggesting that the clarifications you propose are not needed. You mentioned before that a user once asserted that Moldova is a communist state, but that user must have done so out of ignorance because the lead sentence is very clear about what a communist state necessitates. If somebody were to read the article and then expressly tell us that the prose is unclear, then clarifications would be necessary, but so far it seems that any confusion is the result of ignorance and not of ambiguous prose. Of course, some of our disagreements are due to a difference in tastes, and there's no accounting for taste as they say. -- WGee 09:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the history, it is impossible to discuss constitutional developments without mentioning the political forces behind those developments (that is, without mentioning who or what drove the developments in question). I agree that the history section I added held insufficient information about constitutional developments, but it was a start, don't you think?

Regarding the prose: I hereby make explicit my belief that the prose is confusing. You are quite correct that the user who called Moldova a communist state did so out of ignorance. And it is the purpose of wikipedia to combat ignorance. If a reader remains ignorant of a key fact after reading the relevant article, then the article does not explain that fact properly. In any case, you may not remove text on the grounds that you believe it to be unnecessary (unless you are trying to cut down the size of an excessively long article, which is not the case here). In general, you may only remove text that is incorrect. If there is a dispute on whether some text is necessary or not, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and keep it?

In my next edit, I will restore my edits to the introduction and the "use of the term" sections only, leaving the history out. I will also not restore the controversial text in the State and Party section that you object to. I believe this would be a good starting point for a consensus version and I urge you not to revert. -- Nikodemos 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I don't have the time to continue this discussion. :-) I kept your clarifications for the most part, but you must be careful not to be verbose. That said, I replaced your wordy paragraph about how communist states define themselves with the one from 172's version, which conveys the same message in its entirety but with fewer words. Also, some of your diction is too informal and awkward for an encyclopedic article; in other cases, I just didn't like it. You got the better part of this compromise, since virtually all of your clarifications are there, so that I now urge you not to revert. :-) -- WGee 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As you saw, I did not revert. :-) -- Nikodemos 23:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On a less important note, I don't think that most political scientists capitalize the "c" in communist state, and so neither should we—though I understand why one would be induced to do so. -- WGee 02:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

NPOV requires that all views should be presented. Therefore, there should at the very least be a link to the article about criticisms of communist regimes.Ultramarine 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have added a link in the see also section. The question is not the existence of the link (of course there should be one), but where to put the link. I endorse your idea of having a criticism section in the article to carry the link, Ultramarine. -- Nikodemos 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The "state" is separate from the "regime." Please note the difference between the two, which has been explained to you thoroughly. -- WGee 07:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requies the inclusion also of opposing views.Ultramarine 11:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. -- WGee 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempted sarcasm is not an appropriate answer. If "regime" is the correct description for these nations, then the article name should be changed. Done.Ultramarine 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You knew perfectly well that your name change was going to be vehemently opposed before making it, and you are fully aware of the difference between the concepts of regime and state, since it's been explained to you several times; nevertheless, you choose to change the name of the article without any discussion or reasoning just so you can include an article that favours your POV. Keep this up and I'll report you to the administrators' noticeboard for disrupting this article to make a WP:POINT. -- WGee 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange duble standard. When criticzing these nations, they should be called regimes. When discussing them otherwise, they should be called states. Then they cannot be criticzed. Make up your mind, Which is the correct title for these nations? Ultramarine 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Should we create a separate article called Communist regimes that deals with the actual history and actions of these nations (including criticisms of these)? Then this article should deal only with purely theoretical Marxist concepts and everything else be moved to the other article (which obivously must be mentioned prominently here).Ultramarine 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God, the terms state, regime, and nation do mean different things! Look them up. WGee shouldn't have to be teaching elementary civics here! 172 | Talk 05:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spare me. Again, which article should present the history of these nations? If in this article, then there should also be a section for this here. If one the other hand this is not the article for their history, then we should create another article.Ultramarine 12:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No, be accurate when writing for an encyclopedia. Nation refers to the people, not to the rule of a state. Histories of nation-states is found in... believe it or not... articles about the histories of nation-states, such as 'history of the Soviet Union' and the 'history of the People's republic of China.' 172 | Talk 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am intending to start a general article about these states. Where should it go? Here or in Communist regimes?Ultramarine 13:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am currently watching the Criticisms of communist regimes (formerly Criticisms of communist states article and its discussion page. To me it sound pretty logical that if there is a page on criticisms of communist regimes, there must also be an article on these same Communist regimes - if only to explain what one is criticizing. The other option would of course be to rename the Criticisms article again... Luis rib 23:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the counterpart to that article is one dealing with fields more broadly concerned with understanding communist rule. Articles on criticisms of particular subjects are articles on discourses. The subject of that article is the discourses of anticommunist writers such as Courtois, Rummel, Pipes, and Conquest. There is a large array of articles dealing with subjects concerned with understanding Communist rule, such as the article on Soviet and Communist studies. 172 | Talk 15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am intending to start a general article about these states. Where should it go? Here or in Communist regimes?Ultramarine 13:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

communist vs Communst

Years ago I read that the term "communist" with a lower-case c was used to denote the original ideology and "Communist" with a large 'C' to denote the (then) modern Soviet system. More specifically large 'C' related to the "Communist Party" (of whatever country) much like, in say Canada and Australia you have small "l" "liberals" and large 'L' Liberals the latter being related to the Liberal Party of Canada or Liberal Party of Australia (which may or may not be "liberal" parties in ideology depending on your POV). If we use the large 'C' in this and other articles we are, in my view, being more NPOV by specifically denoting people, actions, parties, states etc related to this or that Communist Party rather than commenting on whether or not they are truly "communist".

For evidence that this large C/small c distinction is widely held see Channel 4's glossary (under "communism, Communism") also [10]

Also see distinction between "large C" and "small c" conservativsm (in countries with Conservative Parties such as Britain) as well as the aforementioned large L and small l liberals. General Idea 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

incipit

This is not true "Communist state is a term used by many political scientists to describe a form of government " communist state is name for english spoken, is not used in many others languages --Francomemoria 10:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In marxism there is no communist state as there is no state when communism is reached. Ericd 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect it to Socialist countries

Since none of the mentioned countries ever proclaimed to be communist, but they have proclaimed to be socialist, or change its name to "Countries ruled by communist parties". Why should the world learn to use wrong terms? Redstar1987

See response below. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Merge it with socialist state

I think that a lot of wiki-editors rightly merge articles where one is named after a misnomer, and as 'socialist state' and 'communist state' essentially mean the same thing, I think it would be more accurate, helpful to readers trying to learn about these things, and better for wikipedia to merge these two articles. --Bayano 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

However, this misnomer has been--and continues to be--used by western political scientists and historians to refer to socialist states that have been--or continue to be--dominated by communist parties. They do so to purposely disassociate the communist party run states from other (typically populist) versions of socialism (the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, modern Venezuela, etc). Obviously, individuals who subscribe to communism have trouble with the term, for it does not "jive" with Marxist-Leninist or Maoist political theory. However, those who are not strict followers of that tradition (from populist anti-communist socialists on the left to traditional conservatives on the right) have chosen not to operate within the Marxist-Leninist/Maoist theoretical boundaries (probably out of the fact that they do not believe that the socialist "communist state" will devolve into the predicted communist utopia). The socialist state page regards all forms of socialist states. As such, there is a brief section on Communist run socialist states on the socialist state page. That section refers back to this page, for the readers who want to know more about this particular group of communist run socialist states. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

The term Communist state does not refer to a state that is actually communist; that is an impossibility as with communism there is no state and in order to attain communism one must first have a world of socialist states/a single socialist global state (and no current states are socialist.) Rather, the term "Communist state" refers to a state in which the sole political party with any significant power subscribes to one of the Stalinist ideologies, as the article explains. That's very different from socialist state. 71.198.98.233 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Moldova

In Moldova, President Voronin is a member of a Communist Party. However, the country is not classified as Communist even though is ruled by a communist. Communist countries are all one-party states while Moldova is not so could Moldova be a sole example of a Communist but democratic state?Abc85 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This is now explained in the article. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Sources

This article has a source problem - when POV'ed sources are used, the article will also be POV'ed. E.g. "Resolution 1481 (2006)1 Need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes " - This has not been accepted yet, but still it has been sourced - why? --83.84.138.101 (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV

L.S.

This article is dubious. Why? There are too many opinions involved, too many subjective sources (whether they're sources or not: a bad source is a bad source) and too many opinionated conclusions. I would like to ask every serious wikipedia-editer on this page start looking sceptic at both pro- as anti-POV's, and delete them when you have a mere reason. Do add it to the talk-page, so that others can react incase of injust. We were all instructed to be harsh on un-sourced and "POV-ed" articles in the wikipedia-policy mail which we received. So let us do so. --83.84.138.101 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertions of dubiousness. If anything, the article is more neutral than any other I've seen. It was overhauled by someone freakishly intelligent from a biased, uninformative propaganda page into something beautiful. It is now an article that acknowledges every viewpoint while remaining objective and unbiased. Also, the sources are not bad. unfortunately, wikipedia doesn't allow any original research (a huge problem among the intellectual community) so the knowledge and words of modern communists can't be cited until someone records them, gets people to peer review them, and publishes them, all of which are not likely to be done for a single wikipedia article. Take a look at the talk page, and you will find that the article was written to satisfy as many people as possible to the greatest extent, including those with less than common viewpoints. Further, you have not pointed out any of these "opinionated conclusions" and "subjective sources."Llama (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your reaction (seem not to get so many??)! Yes, the sources have been updated and fixed (see Calz's "preserved for ages" part about Genocide), but there were alot of "dubious" sources before. Yet, I find it strange that we use a European Resolution (which has not been accepted -yet- !) taht wants to condemn Commmunist regimes. Shouldn't we wait e.g. until the Resolution is actually taken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.138.101 (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem not to have much problem with the article at this point, so would you protest to a removal of the NPOV flag?

Llama (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Communism is a form of an economy, but doesn't at all have anything to do with how a state is governed. It only dictates that the government is in control of the means of production. systems of economies, and systems of government. no such thing as communist government as a form. only a government with a communist economy.CalmRationalDisparity (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Genocide??

What is this nonsense about communist states and Genocide? This article should be about the idea of an communist state, not of the failure of some. And if so; then write it in a subsection. Let's not start about the "Capitalism and Iraq thing" shall we..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.138.101 (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense? Your genocide denial because the sources provided were not pro-communist sources? I've reverted your edit and placed a warning on your talk page for removal of sourced content. Get out of your little communist fantasyland and join the real worl, in which communists are the biggest killers, before editing again. Argyriou (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

...Whoa, whoa! Don't get so upset! Just ask him for his proof. I may be new here, but I still think that there should be some civility here. (And how do you sign these comments?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.60.88 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Argy, please read the Wikipedia guide-lines, about sources. Also, maybe something about objectivity? There's no need for you to attack my person at all and I find it very much childish that [b]you changed my original comment[/b] - I did not write down "genocide state" but "communist state". I will go to a moderator if you continue this. Don't feel offended - you might think that the best skippers are standing on the shore - but, indeed, talk. This is is a talk page. Please do ask for my proof. Untill than: the article is restored --83.84.138.101 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not change your original comment. Argyriou (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You state: This article should be about the idea of an communist state, not of the failure of some.. That's incorrect. This article is about the theory and practice of Communist states. That includes the failures of Communism, which include, as a very significant feature of many Communist states, genocide. As many beleive that genocide is not an accidental feature of Communism, and there is thorough, reliable, and significant documentation of deliberate Communist genocide, it is entirely appropriate to mention that in the lead of the article. Trying to remove any mention of genocide, or to confine it to a sub-section, is as blatantly POV as not mentioning anti-semitism in the lead of the article on Nazism. Argyriou (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Come now, Angry you, that's not how we play the game - the urge to destroy that which we cannot tolerate is as unbecoming on you as is was on Stalin or Pol Pot. I, for my part, may rest easy in the knowledge that my magnificent sense of humor (and legitimate criticism of your source material) is preserved for the ages, but don't let our little lover's spat cause you to delete the commentary of innocent bystanders - they didn't bother you that much two days ago...Calzero (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For all your flippancy, you don't actually say much. In particular, for all your derision, you never once explain what is wrong with Rummel's compilations, or why they should not be taken seriously. As you haven't actually contributed anything of use to this article, I'm not going to take anything you say seriously anymore.

I will again delete the statement about Genocide. Why? Because Genocide means "whiping (read: trying to whipe out)" people - based on etnical reasons (Holocaust). Yes, this did occur in the USSR when Stalin's anti-seministic thoughts broke out. But did this happen in Cuba? Did this happen in North-Korea? Did this happen anywhere else (Tibet disputable though!)? Genocide - based on etnical (or religous) reasons? No. It is wrong to characterize this with "the Communist States". You're reasoning Argy is totally wrong. It is wrong to think that just because the Supermarket is selling eggs, that it also lays them! Yes, I give: revolution mostly is paired with mass-murders - but that's apple. We're talking about peares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.138.101 (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The extermination of the kulaks is a genocide, as is every other Communist attempt to wipe out members of the productive classes and their families and relatives. Genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. However, as the "in part" is arguable, I'm going to restore the text, replacing "genocide" with "mass murder". Argyriou (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

a part so americans/capitalist genocide iraqeni, vietnamites, japanese, germans, italians, redskins and many others?--Francomemoria (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes Argy - finaly logic is starting to take over - but not quite. A Communist State does not mean that the State is Communist - it can also be mean that a Communist-party is ruling it (see paragraph below). Mass murder does not occur in those states. Yes, mass murders did occur, but these were more because of Social-economic instability, than by Communism. You still seem very reluctant to understand where this article is about. We already have a dozen pages on wiki concerning mass-murders, you can link them - however, don't characterize the article with them!--83.84.138.101 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Communist states are also known for mas murder of their citizens, sometimes amounting to millions of deaths." - I'm sorry Argy, but this still isn't acceptable. You're kind of generalizing. Do you chop down all the trees when one leave falls on your head?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.138.101 (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate the falsity of the statement, which is impossible, as Communist states do kill very large numbers of their citizens. I've replaced the statement. Leave it in unless you can show that the facts are incorrect, or that the wording is biased. Stating facts which make Communists look bad isn't bias. Read the bit in WP:NPOV about Hitler - this is the same sort of situation. Argyriou (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but I did, now please reply my to arguments, you have been avoiding them all the time. It kind of makes me tired. You did not even reply to Calzo. Come on now! And, why would a statement have to be stated if it's falsity can not be proved? | Have you again deleted somebody's comment? Calzo's page is not available any more...hmmm... --83.84.138.101 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So not all communist states are communist states?

"Communist states may have several legal political parties, but the Communist Party is constitutionally guaranteed a dominant role in government." If a state has a communist party governing it, is it not a communist state even if other parties would be able to take the communist party's place in the government?-- 213.67.208.186 (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Other parties were not able to take over, because in all cases the minor parties did not compete with the CP for power, they worked with it. There is only one historical example of a socialist (not communist) state where parties actively competed with one another within the united front. —Sesel (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sattelite state / client state

It seems to me as a classic POV to refer to those in the soviet sphere of influence as "sattelite state" (negative connotations) and to those in the american sphere of influence as "client state" (neutral connotations). Other Opinions ?-- ExpImp^{talk con} 23:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The term client state is not used within the current form of this article. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

It is classic POV to call American allies "client states", when most were not taking direct orders from Washington, the way the Soviet sattelites were. Argyriou (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

most where not taking direct orders from Washington? So all the dictatorships in south america didnt take direct orders from Washington?? thats a Lie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.7.6 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Defunct Communist states

I think the chart listing defunct Communist states should be restored as it's quite useful, particularly as it also lists ruling parties, and as all the states listed are mentioned in the body of the article (if it's not original research to mention them in the text, it shouldn't be to list them in a chart). General Idea 01:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The table was a hub of original research: there were no sources to suggest that historians refer to those former states as "communist states." Also, this article is about a formal constitutional structure known as a communist state, not about particular countries or regimes and their histories. -- WGee 07:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

How is it original research if it just charts information that's already listed in the article? General Idea 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a list of defunct communist states in the article, and it wouldn't matter if there was one either because there were no sources (see WP:V). -- WGee 05:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

General Idea, the chart was a hub for original research because it encouraged editors to list terms associated with various events that did not refer to entities widely recognized by historians and political scientists as "states," such as the "Soviet Republic of Naissaar," the "Limerick Soviet," and the "Azerbaijan People's Government." It also encouraged editors to frequntly add regimes such as Nicaragua under the Sandinstas and Granada before the 1983 U.S. invasion, which had not clearly established constitutional structures formalizing single party Communist leadership. 172 | Talk 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could create a new list and minimize the threat of original research by setting up clear criteria for what counts as a "communist state". For example, the state must make references to Marxism-Leninism in its constitution - this would be particularly useful in eliminating short-lived entities because they never had the time to pass constitutions. For verifiability, we could require links to the relevant parts of the constitutions of the countries in question. -- Nikodemos 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason there is a link to a Wikipedia scraping of the old chart now in the article. --RucasHost (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because people do stupid things to the list doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. Obviously Nicaragua and Grenada are marginal cases (but probably deserve listing as marginal cases), but surely there can be no controversy about listing Albania and Poland and the DDR? This would be highly useful, and if sourced and everything, would not be original research. We already have a map which more or less does the same thing, so why not a list which provides more detail? john k (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

world communism restricted by socialist states themselves?

I'm not the biggest fan of communism in the world, but could someone explain to me why, if the USSR and Maoist China, who bordered each other, both were aiming for the goal of world communism, they didn't merge into one 'state' anyway? Surely this could've eradicated and absorbed Mongolia as well? This may be a terribily basic question but what's the answer?

Long story short, they battled over ideological orthodoxy, and this prevented that sort of co-operation. The rulers of the USSR and the PRC were propelled into power in the main by different class forces (the "proletariat" and the "peasantry", respectively). Besides that, there is the question of which stage of development each country was in according to Marxist theory. Both states aimed at building socialism, while communism would come later. —Sesel 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but is this the case with other bordering areas like North Korea and Vietnam as well?

Yes. Each country had ideological and political differences. —Sesel 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Both countries were run by despots who had no intention of cooperation, bastardized Marxism and betrayed it. Stalin's theory of "socialism in one country" which Mao more or less accepted and pursued, invalidated the original idea of "world revolution". The Soviet Union and PRC were not communist, Marxist, or socialist. (Demigod Ron (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Geographic connectedness

Did you notice that with the exception of Cuba, you can travel by land between all the current Communist states without travelling over the territory of another state (from Laos through Vietnam through China through North Korea) ? I bet the same is also true before the Soviet collapse. 24.113.177.5 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This might be worth noting in the article. the circumstance of geographic proximity is due to the fact that the USSR expanded outward and those areas that it took over or influenced were often in contact with the USSR via direct land border. Any dissent to a section on "geographic clustering" would be appreciated. I can't think of any reason why it's not worth mentioning.Llama (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Biased view concerning opening paragraphs

As I was reading this article, the phrasing of certain sentences within certian paragraphs struck me as very anti-communist, and straying away from pure facts. I've highlighted portions within the paragraphs where, after reading this, I've felt that revisions should be considered.

The primary features of a Communist state are a one-party dictatorship, totalitarian control of the economy and society, repression of civil liberties, centralized economic planning resulting in enormous economic failures, including shortages of vital products, sometimes to the extent of famine,[1] militarism, and omnipresent propaganda to cover up the systematic failures of the government. Genocide is a common occurrence in Communist states

In Communist theory, after the victory of the Communists, the state "withers away"[14]. According to orthodox Marxist theoreticians, the term "Communist State" is a contradiction.[citation needed]

In multi-party liberal democracies, the system of government (executive, legislative and judicial) operates independently of any political party, with each party competing for a right to control the system of government for a specific tenure. In Communist states, however, state institutions and party institutions depend on each other to function effectively.

What separates Communist states from other one-party systems is the fact that ruling authorities in a Communist state claim to be guided by Marxist-Leninist or Maoist ideology. For Marxist-Leninists, the state and the Communist Party claim to act in accordance with the wishes of the industrial working class; for Maoists, the state and party claim to act in accordance to the peasantry. Both systems claim to have implemented a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, and both claim to be moving towards the gradual abolition of the state and the implementation of communism. These claims have been strongly disputed by opponents of the historical Communist states, including communists who do not subscribe to Marxism-Leninism and Maoism or who regard these states as bastardizations of the ideology.

One portion, such as the "repression of civil liberties", seem incorrect to begin with. A communist state puts the focus on the people as a whole, with less focus on the individual, in a simplistic format - therefore, shouldn't individual replace civil? Stating civil carries a heavy depiction of cruel and/or barbaric treatment.

Another portion involves the last paragraph highlighted, in the portion talking about "Both systems claim to have..." Once again, this seems to be using what has happened in past and current forms of communist societies as truth in what the ideology of a communist state is.

Now, while some of these statements are true in an anecdotal form, that shouldn't stand for an encyclopedic view of what the ideology is, since anecdotal evidence is not evidence in itself. These paragraphs are blurring the lines between facts about the idealogy of what a communist state is, and the historical events of individual communist states.

67.187.169.243 (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sean "saint saturn" Willis

"Genocide is a common occurrence in Communist states."

This add, with many ref from 2 to 13, i'm not sure that all the source referenced cited this--87.6.222.51 (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)sorry --Francomemoria (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

now i'm sure that not all source reported this--Francomemoria (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Add section about the term "communist state"

"Communist state" is a term denounced by every communist I know (including me), so I think we should add a section about the name referring to socialist states. It's simply because the countries listed are not really communist, and I don't know if any one has mentioned it, but "communist state" is a misnomer for "socialist state". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is already a passage about the issue in the name section. Also, note that your point is very much a matter of POV, overlooking what the term actually means in the view of those who (rightly or wrongly) coined it. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Definition of capitalist state

under the list of communist states, and elsewhere, the article states or implies that a state in which the communist party has become intertwined with the government is a communist state.

I think this may mislead people, as nations like the US and UK are capitalist states, but don't have capitalist parties (bu name, at least)

Additionally, the article is by no means neutral and is extremely anti-communist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs) 08:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"...the article states or implies that a state in which the communist party has become intertwined with the government is a communist state."

Yes, it does.

"I think this may mislead people, as nations like the US and UK are capitalist states, but don't have capitalist parties (bu name, at least)"

But they don't need to. The article makes a statement about communist states - there's no need for a mirroring statement about capitalist states (assuming that such entities, mirroing communist states, exist) to be true. We simply make no stament about capitalist states here, only about communist states. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How come there is no article for Capitalist state?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How could their be? Is there as state which is capatalist by its constitution? What makes a state capitalist? Is it a matter of politics (as in Communist states) or of economics? I think it is economics and therefore it is not part of the definition of a state by its constitution. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i know that in some constitutions econimics is part of constitution, or there are laws on that.--Francomemoria (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there are no countries which constitutionally provide for their government to be led by a capitalist party. There is no unified Capitalist International. Capitalism, as an ideological movement, is far less organized than Communism, because by its nature, all societies tend towards capitalism, and governments have to exert significant efforts to make societies less capitalist. A capitalist state is the natural state of affairs, yet is also something of a contradiction in terms, as state action is almost always interfering with capitalism. Argyriou (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. all our parties are capitalist (to some degree). If you want a strict 'capitalist party' the Libertarian party USA fits the bill. The protection of private property (capital) and the right to contract may not be absolute with the democrats and republicans, but it is close enough (for now). Mrdthree (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms section (regarding contentious material)

I have moved it into the criticism section because I felt that it would appear too factual in an opening paragraph. In the criticism section, it is equal on both sides. Also, the criticism section was needed anyway, so it can be expanded. Thank you for coming with an agreement --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this movement, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, WP:NPOV discourages "criticism" sections; criticisms should be handled within the article generally. Secondly, as this article is about both the theory and practice of Communist states, a summary of all important information about existing Communist states ought to be presented in the introduction, and expanded upon further down in the article. The totalitarian nature and economic and moral failings of Communist states are important aspects of the history and practice of Communism, and should not be minimized by removal from the lead. Argyriou (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am recommending we keep the section the way it is until we can come to a complete agreement. While the evils of the communist state needs to be addressed, perhaps it can be worded so it is not so obvious that it is biased against communism. If the criticisms section is handled within the article generally, the article might as well be named criticisms of communist state's. We could add a page and put a large amount of criticisms there, and link to it from this one. That way, the article doesn't swarm with bias against communist states. We can also merge this article with communism, and allow the criticisms already in place to be part of it. While we both must reach an agreement, other people's opinions might be taken into consideration. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This article and Communism are too big to be merged.

Describing facts is neutral. Stating that Communist states have all failed economies is factual - they all have. Stating that Communist states suppress civil liberties is factual - all Communist states suppress civil liberties. Saying that many Communist states have committed genocide is neutral - many have. These statements make Communist states look bad - that's because the facts are that the leaders of Communist states did many bad things. As quoted in WP:NPOV:

“ You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. ”

The same applies to the greater crimes of the Communists.

If you believe the way I've presented the facts is not neutral, please say so, with specific examples, and your suggestions for rewording them. Argyriou (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't neutral entirely. At the end of the Soviet union, Gorbachev's reforms ended most of these. Civil liberties, while I agree that it is true, is not technically right, as China has privacy and freedom of speech as a human right. But the government can censor anything not in it's interests.

The exact paragraph could read.

"Communist states have a tendency to have faltered economies and often suppress civil liberties. On multiple occasions, they have committed genocide." We can put that in the top of the article, I just think the previous wasn't wikified enough. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Editorial column

I'm not sure if the criticism is an editorial. I think that the same information just needs to be wikified after much thought. --Rockstone35 (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There is probably some language which could be changed to be a little more neutral; and some better references could be found (the existing references were the result of about 15 minutes web-searching). There could be a section in the body of the article which expanded on the results of Communist rule - there were some positive things for some places - gender equality generally advanced in ways which survived the fall of Communism; the more industrialized Communist states managed to get passable roads and rural electrification rolled out faster than other countries with similar incomes did, that sort of thing. But that would require more work and some significant research for good sources. Argyriou (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

{{}}

North Korea

Is North Korea a Communist State? The constitution [11] clearly states that it is a socialist state. "Communism" is mentioned two times. Article 19: "Socialism and Communism are built by the creative labor of the working masses." Article 40: "The DPRK shall, by carrying out a thorough cultural revolution, train the working people to be builders of socialism and communism equipped with a profound knowledge of nature and society and a high level of culture and technology, thus making the whole of society intellectual."Ultramarine (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

North Korea is not a "communist state" by the article's own definition and should be removed from the list as such in the article. The official ideology of the state is Juche, not Marxism-Leninism.

From North Korea: "Officially a socialist republic, North Korea is considered by many in the outside world to be a totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship." From Juche: "In 1972, Juche replaced Marxism-Leninism in the revised North Korean constitution as the official state ideology, this being a response to the Sino-Soviet split. Juche was nonetheless defined as a creative application of Marxism-Leninism. Kim Il-sung also explained that Juche was not original to North Korea and that in formulating it he only laid stress on a programmatic orientation that is inherent to all Marxist-Leninist states." Basically the entire section in the Juche article entitled "Relation to Marxism, Stalinism, and Maoism" is all about how Juche is a form of Communism, although it does include a few alternate points of view held by various commentators. Nevertheless, I believe it is absolutely ridiculous to categorize North Korea as "Formerly communist", as this article does. I think that characterization is POV, violating NPOV rules. Since the North Korean regime is generally looked down upon for its awful human rights abuses, perhaps Marxists have decided that they do not want to be associated with it. Is there a consensus regarding whether North Korea is Communist or not, among the editors of this page? If not, perhaps we should reclassify it from "Formerly communist" to "Arguably communist", "Perhaps communist", "Communist status debated", or something that indicates that not everybody agrees North Korea is not Communist. Or if the vast majority of Wikipedians agree with me that North Korea's Juche ideology actually is Communist (in fact, that it it totalitarian Stalinism), perhaps it could be included on the list of Communist nations with China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. Also, the person who replied to Ultramarine did not sign their comment stating that North Korea is not Communist, a violation of Wikipedia policies. If this article is not fixed, it should be flagged as violating NPOV until the problem is resolved. --69.205.228.89 (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus

New Cypriot President is the leader of Communist Party. Should this be noted in the article? --Avala (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

References

References 5-9 are the same source. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.150.35 (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The references here are a total disgrace. The article should be renamed "The communist state, according to Robert K Furtak". Here are some more problems:

Ref 1 proposes that the communist manifesto supports that "Within Marxist theory, world communism is the final phase of history at which time the state would have withered away". The communist manifesto has generally, in marxist theory and by marx and engels, been seen as an interesting but immature work and it doesn't speak of any "final phase of history".

Ref 2 proposes that "According to democratic centralism, all leaders must be elected by the people and all proposals must be debated openly, but, once a decision has been reached, all people have a duty to obey that decision and all debate should end. When used within a political party, democratic centralism is meant to prevent factionalism and splits. When applied to an entire state, democratic centralism creates a one-party system."

If that is the case then every state ruled by laws created by a centralized democratic parliament would be a "one-party system", but that is plain silly. That a central parliament creates laws that are to be obeyed by all is standard procedure in modern democracies.

Ref 8 tries to support the claim that "communist states are widely seen as being de facto dictatorships by historians and sociologists" by linking to a German government report about human rights in Germany. Why? Vidugavia (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to add more references, please do so. No one will stop you. Furthermore, the "references" are actually inline citations for the same reference, so there's really no problem. We don't have to limit citations to one per reference. Even-further-more, can you give us any citations for your statements? I'm still trying to read the manifesto, but as you say, it's not a great work. I wouldn't call it immature, but it feels like reading the notes on a bunch of napkins.

If you think a reference, or a statement with an inadequate reference, should be removed, be bold and remove it. And to clarify the thing about one-party systems, the idea is probably that it creates unity, and the article should be changed to reflect that better, though I can't say that this is the intent of the author. Tealwisp (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I read this article because I would like to learn something from it, not because I enjoy editing articles. I have referred to some problems in the text because I would like some more learned editors to clarify. Before I edit anything it would be nice if anyone could try to explain why reference 1 and 8 is relevant at all. It would also be nice if there were references to more scientific secondary works about the subject then Furtaks more than 20 years old book. Other fields of study related to the soviet union have, the last two decades, been refreshed by the new archive sources available. Haven't anything good been written about the "communist state" after the fall of the iron curtain?Vidugavia (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref 1 is the Manifesto itself, to provide the original marxist theory regarding the subject. ref 8 is to provide NPOV and NOR to what could otherwise be a dubios statement, as it is a statement of opinion. It is a UN page, about the communist rule of East Germany. The UN generally represents the world's governments. As for ref 2, my previous statements stand. Tealwisp (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Libia

Libia is a Communist State. "Socialist People's Libyan Arab Great Jamahiriya" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.36.65.29 (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Usage of the term"

In

The reason why most Western scholars prefer the term "communist state" rather than "socialist state" to describe these countries is because most socialists oppose the idea of a vanguard party pulling a nation towards communism, and thus the term "socialist state" is liable to cause confusion.

I have an issue with "most socialists oppose". Isn't that most socialists in the West? Obviously "socialist" is a broad term covering many people, but the way its written it sounds like "socialist state" was avoided because Western socialists told the academics that they were not socialist states, from their POV. 118.90.9.95 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

China Prc

List of current Communist states are missing the Prc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.196.34 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Infactial map

If you look at the map there are some nations missing as this is a scaled down version some countrys have been left out like Angola and syria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaik9a (talk • contribs) 03:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

North Korean constitutional ammendment.

It was dodgy as to whether North Korea was, by the article's definition, a communist state before North korea's constitutional ammendment, but now the constitution makes no reference at all to communism. Instead, it dedicates the country to something called 'Military-First'. I'm starting to think it should be removed from our list. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.170.211.46 (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be by all means. See Constitution of North Korea) for sources listed. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I completely disagree with That-Vella-Fella and think that North Korea should be restored to the list. See our exchange on the other article here - [12]. Sofia9 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sofia9 is correct and That-Vella-Fella is wrong. North Korea is Communist, as I argued above in the North Korea section of the Talk page. If we cannot agree on this, we should label the article as violating NPOV. --69.205.228.89 (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

Is Nepal Communist? It is currently ruled by the Communist Party (Maoist) and the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), but its constitution says it is a democratic republic. I am leaning towards calling it a democratic republic. Your thoughts? --69.205.228.89 (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's still Communist. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article (and the maps) talks just about one-party Communist states, where the Marxist-Leninist doctrines and the party monopoly are enshrined in the constitution and structures of power.

So the article does not talks about countries where Communist parties take power and govern trough conventional electoral-parliamentary rules, like the current case of Nepal, or the past cases of San Marino and post-Soviet-dissolution Moldova.--MaGioZal (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nepal is not a communist state. The coalition government is led by the communists. However the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) coalition fell in 2009. This coalition included the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified-Marxists-Leninists) and parties representing the interests of the Madhesi people.

The Maoists are in the opposition for the time being. The new government is made up of 22 parties led by the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified-Marxist-Leninist). Basically every party in constituent assembly is in the government except for the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.43.250 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Biased?

Does anyone else think that this article is tilted away from communism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.170.3 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some guy was angry and need to make this article. xD See like he has little idea, confounding marxist-leninist socialist state with communist state. xD Please, some guy rewrite this shit with the real meaning of communist state in marxist theory. --85.239.199.151 (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the problem with this article is that there is no codified form of government known officially as a communist state. The term "communist state" (or should I say "communist regime", which I think is more frequent) is a broad - though widely used - expression encompassing various different regimes - generally Republics, but also Federations, or generically-named "States" - which had or have in common the undisputed rule of a political party calling itself or purporting to be communist (some called themselves "Socialist party" or "Workers' party", or stuff like that) and referring itself to marxism and/or marxism-leninism. If I'm not mistaken, the only regime which actually purported to be directly "communist" was Democratic Kampuchea. The others called themselves "communist", but more frequently used the term "socialist", and purported the be "building communism", or other assorted marxist lingo. IMHO, "communist regime" would be a better title, and the intro should be rewritten, as the current ones are misleading. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Chile

Chile of Salvador Allende government (1970-1973) should be noted as some kind of a state that doesn't fall into "traditional" "communist state" definition by western political scientists, but falls into the same category as 1980s Nicaragua or current Moldova or Cyprus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkenen (talk • contribs) 16:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Salvador Allende was a marxist-leninist and while he didnt have the chance to turn Chile into a full communist state that was certainly his ambition. Thankfully the people of Chile overthrew him.190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong, the people of Chile didn't overthrow Allende; America did. You should read William Blum's book "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower" & this website ([[13]]) which details that the USA caused every attempt at social justice (Socialism & Communism) to fail by teaching people to torture & kill anyone who wanted Socialism & Communism. Stars4change (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we agree on a universal-wikipedian definition of communism, and enforce it?

Can we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QFlux (talk • contribs) 19:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with one definition of communism for wikipedia is that there is no one definition for real life, especially because there are so many different kinds of communism. Tealwisp (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No trouble. Marx is the one who coined and defined it, thus that is the base standard. Other versions are derived from the Marx definition. Trentc (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is communism?

A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. -Dictionary.comCommunism —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinvs13 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Communism is a system in which all the fruit of labor is shared equally among the citizens of a nation, and each citizen is equal. Therefore, technically, there has never been a true communist state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.170.3 (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Communism is also stateless i.e. no government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Grenada

I noticed that Grenada was added to the map of historical communist states and is also included under the Latin America section for the communist states tab of the Socialism by country template. I was a bit surprised to see Grenada under the New Jewel Movement listed almost everywhere on Wikipedia as a former communist state, as about five months ago the majority of users active in this field tended to classify this time period of Grenada along with Nicaragua. I'm wholly unaware of any substantial details concerning Grenada under the NJM up until the invasion, though I'm not aware if the NJM (or People's Revolutionary Government ever "officially" declared Grenada a communist state, much less even intend to do so soon after taking power. Thanks to anyone who can help clear this possible gray area up. VoodooIsland (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Democracy and Communism

Are there actually any democratically elected communist parties? And is this a matter of dispute, or is it generally acknowledged (both by supporters and opponents of communism)?

I've heard ideologues claim that no people has ever voted their way into a dictatorship of any form, let alone a Communist one. Is this this so much hot air, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the Communist Manefesto, the people do vote. The Russians have voted in recent times. Trentc (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer this question we would really have to define what democracy is. There are som many different veiw that anyhting could be said to be a Democracy. Under know 'communist state' and party each level is elected by the one below it. In the party for example, a congress electes the politburo which then elects the committee above it. The same is done in a 'communist state'. I would say that democracy as everyone in the goverment is elected, instead of the Us system were the top guy is elected and the people below them are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.149.139 (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Moldova and Nepal

Both the text of this article and version of the map in the Chinese wiki show Moldova. I tried to upload an update but get an error both here and at Commons. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, think I see what it may be, it's a bit over 1.5 MB. Please correct if you can using the version I've updated. Commons is the best way as it propagates the existing license and stuff. Link above is also in the talk page for the image at Commons. Gzipping doesn't help or I didn't know how to name so that it would upload. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the mediawiki software is just broken. I do seem to see some files at commons that are over 1.5 MB. In any case, by democratic action of its people Moldova has remained red since the turn of the century and the CP is still by far the most popular and politically dominant party there. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the archives were messed up, moved them into proper namespace locations and enabled indexing and auto archiving for threads with no activity after a year. Lycurgus (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Added Nepal. Can't confirm Cyprus, and would only be a part anyway, I presume. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

LPDR and DPRK officially revoked allegiance to Marxism-Leninism in 1991 and 1992, respectively

Laos adopted a heavily regulated capitalist economy, and North Korea officially follow the doctrine Juche, which preaches strict Korean nationalism and isolationism.

Neither of these are Communist states and I am requesting that a moderator, administrator, or editor capable of exceeding the semi-protection lock remove them from thelist as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaseyour2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 07:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oxymoron

Communism is a stage that would follow after capitalism, this stage would be stateless according to Marx. Thus, communism is stateless, obviously then a 'communist state' is a contradictio in terminis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goti123 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is cogent, and based on a well known principle of Communism. If it's not in the mainspace text yet, I will place it later. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Noting this has been done, current text qualifies "according to the Marxist-Lennist or Maoist definition". Lycurgus (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the classification "communist state" is based on the party in control. But China is one of the worlds most capitalistic counties; it's basically operating on a pre FDR New Deal type of capitalism, without the social safty-net programs in the US, such as Medicare, Medicaid, social security and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.45.120.114 (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How is it justified to include North Korea in this list? It seems completely pointless, given that the North Korean state has explicitly disavowed Marxism-Leninism altogether. It is listed under a ridiculous category: "Communist states with no references to Marxist-Leninism but still possess a party-state overlap" - According to this article then, the only requirement for a state to be considered a "communist state" is that there is an overlap between party and state, although there have been multiple examples throughout history of single-party states that have been explicitly anti-communist in nature. Yazman (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Changed text, added cites

Made some changes to the text of the article, I think it makes more sense now (though the lead still needs to be like half as long), and added a bunch of citations regarding CPs elected in democratic states. A big outstanding issue: is it reasonable to exempt communist-led democratic states from "communist state" and - if so - why? It seems that this is already a big part of the article, and I feel it demands inclusion. So, should we pull everything into two separate main sections or something? I'm not sure yet what the most elegant way to deal with this is; as it stands, the article says that communist democracies are not relevant to the article, but in fact discussion of them makes up a great deal of the article... DigitalHoodoo (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A communist state is a one-party state officially run by a communist party. Democratic states that have elected communist parties don't count because a) their official ideology is not communism b) there is a pluralist system in which more than one party can compete and win elections fairly. AlexanderKaras (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Animated map

Should there be an animated map, showing the various Communist states as they became Communist or non-Communist, and during the Sino-Soviet split, whether they supported the USSR, PRC, or were non-aligned? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

1979 map

Burma was a socialist state in these years and yet is not displayed on the map? Should it be added? Jacsam2 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Venezula under Chavez? Also the Left Front in West Bengal, led by Communist Party of India (Marxist) and other Indian states like Orissa and Kerela have 'Communists' ruling in coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.65.126 (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Moderate Liberal Viewpoint

Since when, liberalizm is "Moderate"?

Is Wikipedia a liberal propaganda aparatus? --76.31.238.174 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when? Probably since Wikipedia moved beyond right wing Americans' narrorw definition of "liberal" to mean something to be hated. Do study the meaning of the word in other places. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I said. Liberalizm is a political ideology. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. In a Wikipedia article it can't be stated that "liberalism is moderate" implying "all other political ideologies are extreme". This doesn't have a relationship with "liberalism is something to be hated". I'm sorry for you if you are fan-boy of a certain political ideology and are biased. This supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not your party program.

So...If we get back to the subject, using "liberalism" or "liberal" as a word meaning "moderate" is against Neutral Point of View. I suggest editing the related section.

--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your definition of liberal? HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

supporting or advocating liberalism. or related to liberalism. and this is not my definition. it is like what communist and communism is about. socialist and socialism, theocrat and theocracy...--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, you linked to Liberalism. That tells us that Liberals support "constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion". Looks pretty mainstream and moderate to me. But let's face it. The word liberal is used by people on the right in politics in the USA as an insult for their perceived opponents in American politics. But that's an extreme usage. The word liberal has many meanings around the world. Heck, it's the name of the more right wing of the two biggest political parties here in Australia. To come closer to your perspective it's probably dangerous to use "liberal" to mean anything in particular at all in a global encyclopaedia. Maybe I would support use of another word, but not because liberal has a particular meaning. More because it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. "liberal" maybe -once- was a generic word. But it is not anymore. As in the name of Liberal International, "libral" means someone who advocates liberalism or something which is related to liberalism. And yes, liberalism is an ideology which is capitalist -therefore right wing-, which supports free(!) and fair(!) elections in an environment of manufactured consent, which favors a constitution prepared by capitalist class and dictated by majority, which supports human rights (especially in certain countries labeled as "Evil" such as Syria, Iran and China but not in rich countries like Saudi Arabia), which supports freedom of religion of majority beliefs (bot not for example of Alevis which are minority and poor).

And, yes, it's pretty mainstream to me too. Since majority is always ignorant, conformist, right wing, discriminative, ready to obey the powerful. So it's not a coincidence. People who support other forms of right wing ideologies (thocrats, racists, nationalists, etc.) may hate liberals. It's mainstream too. Right wing people hate everything and everyone who are not like them and what does not belong to them. For a right wing person, only his or her camp is enough "Right". Liberals are no exception. Liberals hate thocrats, racists, and nationalists. This is a pattern of right wing politics.

End, if we return to the subject, "liberal" has a meaning. It is someone who supports Liberalism or something which is related to Liberalism. Just as used in Liberal International. Therefore, it can't be used as an adjective meaning "good". At least in an encyclopedia. I don't hate liberals. I understand them. But this is not the point. for the sake of "Neutral Point of View", Wikipedists shouldn't use "liberal" as a word meaning "good", "cool", "awesome", etc.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh, was that a sarcastic rant? There's no point continuing this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "rant". You defined liberalism with your words and I defined liberalism with my words using same parameters. What-liberalism-is is not the point here. The point is unsuitable use of the word "liberal" as a whitewasher one.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't attempt to define Liberalism at all. I did show that the link you claimed to be using said virtually the opposite of what you claimed Liberalism meant. I'll just repeat a point I made earlier which, if you had paid attention, probably suits your goal of removing it from this article - "... I would support use of another word, but not because liberal has a particular meaning. More because it doesn't." HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, the expression should be edited.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

North Korea

Well, North Korea has disavowed communism a while ago. Should it be removed from the list then? --Nekoceko (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I thought so too long ago, but some still want it left as is. In a way I can see as to why since what they have now still stems from the ideals from it. Currently it really shouldn't be, but historically it definitely was. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Yeah, but it's not now and hasn't been for more than 30 years. It's a straight-up lie to keep it there, even under "disputed" status. There's no dispute! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazman (talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence

Under "Disputed or mixed governments" there's the word "Therefore" which appears to be starting a sentence, but there's nothing there. 174.57.199.184 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I've removed the word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki

I haven't got the right to edit the page so... In it.wiki there is page the page it:Stato Comunista. Plese add on the interwiki EnsignIT (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

cuba?

is cuba a communist society? The gtmo base article says so, not sure why, but i dont see it listed here. ( Martin | talk • contribs 16:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC))

Edit request on 31 March 2013

Kim Il Sung was the inventor of Juche not Kim Jong Il. 67.161.123.187 (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Done: Agrees with article on Juche. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Communism

One article should be enough to encapsulate all the relevant ideas being rehashed in way too many articles. johncheverly 21:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Common misnomer - there can be no such thing as a "communist state" in communist political theory

No communist party-led government has called itself a "communist state", communist theory describes communism as being achieved when society is stateless. This term is used to describe Marxist-Leninist-led states. It would be better to rename this article "Marxist-Leninist state".--R-41 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no universally agreed term, we are required to use the most common term, per WP:DISAMBIG and explain any difficulties with the term, as we do. If you want to move the article could you please provide evidence that there is a better name, and set up a move request. When you move articles it causes numerous problems with re-directs. TFD (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence of the article that was linked: "Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology..."

That should end the discussion. Belchfire-TALK 08:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Marxism–Leninism is a communist ideology..." It is not "the" communist ideology. And Marxism-Leninism derives from the Bolshevik communist movement that was opposed by the Menshevik communist movement and others.--R-41 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

An editor removed the statement, "No state led by a communist party describes itself as a "communist state." The next sentence says, "In Marxism, communism is the final phase of history at which time the state would have "withered away"". It would seem paradoxical that a state could claim that it was both a state and not a state. However, we need a source to support the claim. TFD (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Start here: define communism. Don't use anybody's name (Marx, Lenis, etc.), just describe communism. What does it look like? Belchfire-TALK 08:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like people living in a society with no government. TFD (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

More particularly, Marx described the end goal of communism as a communist society that would be a classless and stateless society. Therefore "communist state" is completely inaccurate. Marxist-Leninist-led states called their states "socialist", not "communist", because as said before there is no such thing as a "communist state" in Marxist theory.--R-41 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As I can see everyone agrees that there can be no "communist" state, but the article is still named after this oxymoronic (and POV-y) term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpov (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, because the page on communism talks about "Communism" specifically, the page on a "Communist state" talks about communist states. Two different pages. One talks about involvement the other, the philosophy itself. (talk) 08:39, 21, May 2013 (UTC)

I think that last comment was supposed to be placed in the section below. Anyway, this article should be renamed "socialist state". --XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014

Communist parties as part of a ruling coalition

There are also some parties that participate as junior partners in ruling coalitions, as listed below.

• Argentina - Communist Party of Argentina and Communist Party of Argentina (Extraordinary Congress) participate in the ruling coalition
• Bangladesh - Workers Party of Bangladesh participates in the ruling coalition
• Brazil - Communist Party of Brazil participates in the ruling coalition
• Chile - Communist Party of Chile participates in the ruling coalition
• Donetsk People's Republic - Communist Party of the Donetsk People's Republic participates in ruling coalition
• Ecuador - Communist Party of Ecuador participates in the ruling coalition lead by PAIS Alliance
• Nepal - Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist–Leninist) participates in the ruling coalition lead by Nepali Congress
• Peru - Peruvian Communist Party participates in the ruling coalition
• South Africa - South African Communist Party participates in the ruling coalition
• Sri Lanka - Communist Party of Sri Lanka participates in the ruling coalition
• Syria - Syrian Communist Party and Syrian Communist Party (Unified) participate in the ruling coalition
• Uruguay - Communist Party of Uruguay and People's Victory Party participate in the ruling coalition
• Venezuela - Communist Party of Venezuela participates in the ruling coalition

TURTLOS (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Pishcal (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)