Talk:End of communism in Hungary

Bad title

I'm no professional, but as far as I know there never has been communism in Hungary, and the party wasn't communist but socialist. So there wasn't any end of either "communism" or "communist regime", since there weren't any of those in existence. --grin ✎ 16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, there was communism in Hungary between 1948(1949) and 1989(1990). And the party was a communist party, only the word "communist" was not included in its name. maxval (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Better learn politics before commenting. Communism is when there is no state and class at all. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think a good title would be Hungarian Revolution of 1989. Charles Essie (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I also think the title should be changed. There was never communism in the Eastern Bloc. In the constitution of most of these countries it states that the nation is a socialist republic. Example: “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”; not “Union of Soviet Communist Republics”. When you look into the economy of the countries you realize that the communist ideal: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need was not the case. The USSR and therefore Hungary used the ideal: To each according to his contribution. The party in power was called Communist… but only for the sake of propaganda… to show what the country is striding for. Otherwise, the term communist is usually misused for a totalitarian socialism. (Don’t mistake this for social democracy – different ideas). Such was the case in the Eastern Bloc countries. Kndimov (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the title must be changed as well. The terms are specifically selected and used by people aligned to obvious political views, that even use those articles for their political agenda and justify their rhetoric as Wikipedia is a so-called independent platform of media. Anti-communism shouldn't be dominant in an independent wiki. Wikipedia loses its neutrality day by day. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It should be changed because communism is a process that did took power in Hungary, it is not just the end state but also the process of changing towards that, as Marx and Engels said. But the titles should be changed not in the word communism but in the word "End". Because it did not end, it lost political control of the state, but there are still communists in Hungary and they may yet rule again some day. Calling it an end is like saying history has ended in Hungary, which is just not true. 177.236.74.185 (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved, but no prejudice against a new RM for an alternative proposal. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

End of Communism in Hungary (1989) → Hungarian Revolution of 1989 – This was another "Hungarian Revolution", in the tradition of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, besides the use of the word "communism" being disputed in the above discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, there was no revolution in Hungary during fall of communism 1989-90. 0 GB results for "Hungarian revolution 1989". I think the current title is appropriate, nevertheless I also could accept Transition to Democracy in Hungary (1989–90). One more thing: there was communism in Hungary between 1948-49 and 1989-90, even if the word does not appear in the constitution.--Norden1990 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There were protests, and a dramatic change from an authoritarian regime to a more liberal one, right? Sound like a revolution to me. Charles Essie (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this your OR? Show me a reliable source (book, publication, news article etc.) which affirm there was a revolution in 1989-90 in Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A Spiegel Online article (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/hungary-s-peaceful-revolution-cutting-the-fence-and-changing-history-a-627632.html) refered to the events in Hungary in 1989 as a "Peaceful Revolution". Charles Essie (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Only the melodramatic title contains the phrase. There was no revolution in 1989. Unfortunately. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the newswriter used the word "revolution" (I guess) to grab the readers' attention. Anyway, I would be okay with Norden1990's proposal. What do you say Charles? Csendesmark (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The communism were ended with a democratic election in Hungary. At the election the communist MSZMP had a humiliating loss and got only 33 seats from the 386. Not even riots... the Czechoslovakian velvet revolution was "very violent" compared to this event :). FYI, all of the other commie-regime change was more violent.

You should check these Pan-European Picnic Removal of Hungary's border fence with Austria. Csendesmark (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes revolutions occur from the top down, like Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution or China's Cultural Revolution. Charles Essie (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If the answer is really yes for your question, it took place in the '60s, under the early Kádár era and theHungarian style Goulash Communism, in nutshell the system has implemented a lot western style element, so it became the "happiest barrack" in the Eastern block. Csendesmark (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as users Norden1990 and Csendesmark have already pointed out, there was no revolution in Hungary in 1989. I prefer keeping the original title. My problem with the "Transition to Democracy in Hungary (1989–90)" variant is that it might be read as if Hungary never had democracy before 1989 (while in fact it had, for example, even right before the communists took power in the late 1940s). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: If we are to keep a variant of the present title, I would prefer, on the model of Fall of communism in Albania, Fall of communism in Hungary. "Fall" is more widely used of the 1989 events across Eastern Europe, while there is no need to capitalize "communism".
• The question is not whether a group of Wikipedia editors think Hungary had a revolution in 1989, but what reliable sources have to say. And actually, a few of them do speak of such. It's not my first choice as a title, but the claim that there was a revolution is substantiated by some sources.
• Koertefa's speculation about how "transition to democracy" "might be read as" are baseless. We have Spanish transition to democracy; Spain had had periods of democracy prior to the 1970s. We have Chilean transition to democracy; Chile had been a consolidated democracy for decades prior to the early 1970s, but nevertheless had a transition to democracy around 1990. Both terms are widely used in academic sources. And just this year, the highly respected academic publisher Routledge put out... The Transition to Democracy in Hungary. So that too is a valid possibility.
• In sum, I would say my preference is as follows: 1) Fall of communism in Hungary 2) Hungarian transition to democracy and 3) Hungarian Revolution of 1989. But please, dear participants: more sources, less opinionated speculation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see, you have called my opinion "speculation", based on some speculations of yours: that if there is a similar title variant used by another WP article, then it must be an unquestionable choice, and it is baseless to think that an existing WP title could ever be misleading. How convincing. BTW: did you know that WP is not a source? There are obviously several possible name variants which we could use, and just because a variant is supported by a source, it does not mean that we could not prefer another one (if it is also widely used). On the other hand, the word "fall" is even better than "end", I would support that. Ciao, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• First, if you want academic sources using "Spanish transition to democracy" or "Chilean transition to democracy", there are plenty.
• For Spain, see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.
• For Chile, see here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here.
• For Hungary, we have, just for starters, this and this and this and this and this and this, as well as a whole book published this year.
• So, yes, supposing that the title might lead readers to think 1989-90 was Hungary's first taste of democracy is indeed speculative, given the widespread use of the phrase to apply to Hungary and to other countries that made a second or a third move toward democracy.
• I would also add that, in case we do adopt "transition", there is no need to put a date in the title, because the phrase is unambiguous. No one would confuse it with the "transition" from monarchical rule to that of gróf Károlyi, and in any case we have an article on that event (Aster Revolution), or with the "transition" from Szálasi to his successors. Likewise, there is no need for a date if we use "end"/"fall": for what happened in the summer of 1919, we have Revolutions and interventions in Hungary (1918–20) and Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919. If anyone disagrees with me, let him first demonstrate even one source that calls the events of 1918 or of 1945 a "Hungarian transition to democracy", or those of 1919 a "fall/end of communism in Hungary".
• But I'm glad we agree on at least one point. Is anyone else tentatively on board with Fall of communism in Hungary? - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

End of Communism in Hungary (1989) → Fall of communism in Hungary – Now that one proposal has failed, let's try another. I believe this one should be adopted for several reasons:

• It's crisp, clear and concise.
• It's in line with at least one other article, Fall of communism in Albania.
• "Communism" is a common noun, so no capital letter. (Council communism, Criticism of communism, World communism, Religious communism, History of communism, etc.)
• Perhaps the most contentious aspect here is the dropping of the date. Unlike most places (can anyone think of another?), Hungary has had the (mis?)fortune of going through not one but two single-party communist regimes, the first very brief, the second seemingly interminable. Given that there were two regimes, there were two falls, one in 1989, the other in 1919. However, no one uses "fall of communism in Hungary" to refer to the 1919 event. The phrase always refers to 1989. If someone disagrees, feel free to bring sources disproving me.
• In the interests of pedantry, we could have a note at the top of the page: For the 1919 event, see Hungarian_Soviet_Republic#Downfall. But there really is no need for the date in the title. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC) Biruitorul ^Talk 04:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - if there were two events, then the date is needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • All right, let's go through this again.
    • No one uses this expression to refer to the events of ca. August 1, 1919. Whenever it or a similar phrase is used, it always refers to late 1989. If you have sources suggesting the contrary, you are welcome to show them.
    • Putting in a date implies that at a certain point, End of Communism in Hungary (1919) will also be created. But is such an article even feasible? I agree we can and should expand our coverage of the Soviet Republic, but by no means am I certain a separate article is warranted. For one, the event is bound up with the ongoing war. For another, "end of"/"fall of" typically refers to phenomena that went on for a long time, not ones that lasted but a few months. (End of the Han Dynasty, End of Roman rule in Britain, Fall of the Western Roman Empire, Fall of the Serbian Empire.) To be sure, this period left its mark on Hungarian history, but there is a qualitative difference between it and these others, and even the late 1940s-1989 regime.
    • Given all this, a disambiguation note at the top seems the most logical approach. It recognizes that the 1989 events are the primary (indeed, probably the only) usage of the phrase "Fall of communism in Hungary", but on the off-chance someone was looking for the 1919 event (unlikely, but let's grant the assumption), points that reader in the right direction. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• I think Hungarian transition to democracy would make a better title. Charles Essie (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'd associate that phrase not with Hungary, but with Spain where it was explicitly called "Transición Española" and took place over many more years than the comparatively sudden changes of 1989-1990 - a "fall" or "revolution" rather than a transition. How many sources that use that term for Hungary? I'd suspect not many... SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The hatnote should deal with the unlikely case of confusion just fine, and "fall of communism" is surely a more accepted & used title than "transition to democracy." SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support - shouldn't even have been requested, just speedily moved. Clear primary topic. Red Slash 03:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as it is concise and right to the point. I also agree that the year is unnecessary, as the Hungarian Republic of Councils (a.k.a. Hungarian Soviet Republic) was extremely short-lived and was constantly at war, so (apart from some symbolic acts) they did not have time to establish real social/economical/cultural/etc. changes. Thus, even if the leaders of Hungary were Bolseviks in 1919, we cannot really talk about a "full flagged" communism in that time. Consequently, it is unambiguous which period the title refers to. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose As I already stated my opinion above - The communism were ended with a democratic election in Hungary. At the election the communist MSZMP had a humiliating loss and got only 33 seats from the 386. It wasn't a really special election, only speciality was, it ended the communist era in Hungary. Csendesmark (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Communism fell in Hungary when reliable sources tell us it fell, not when Csendesmark believes it fell. See WP:OR for details.
  • The fall of communism in Hungary did not take the form of a single event, but was a gradual, months-long process. This began in earnest in autumn 1989 and continued through the May 1990 elections. The entire process is covered in the article.
  • What point are you trying to make, more exactly? If not the proposed title, then what alternative do you suggest and why? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose To characterize the type of society that existed in Hungary during the Cold War as "communism", with a lowercase c, is contentious. "Communism" is a common noun, yes, but the common noun in question refers to an ideology, or sometimes to the proposed future utopian society advocated by Marxists. Soviet-type societies, including the People's Republic of Hungary, referred to their system as socialism, not communism. Western sources do refer to it as "communism" sometimes, but that is not a consensus name. Other times they call it "socialism", "real socialism", "really-existing socialism", "state socialism", "Soviet socialism", "Soviet communism", etc. Wikipedia should not refer to it as communism as if that were the universally-accepted name for it. It isn't. Using an uppercase C is better, because it suggests that it's not the same thing as communism-in-general, but an even better name would be "Communist Party rule" (with or without the uppercase C and P). This has the advantage of being uncontroversial: Whatever the system should be called, it's clear that a Communist Party ruled it. So I propose the alternative name End of Communist Party rule in Hungary. KS79 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "Communism" is what is known as shorthand. Yes, we know that "communism" means something else in Marxist theory, but that is not really an issue here. What is at issue is how scholarly works refer to the process described in the article, and insofar as they give it a name, "fall of communism in Hungary" appears the most common.
  • While we're making up titles, why not End of Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party rule in Hungary? No one uses that; no one uses "End of Communist Party rule in Hungary"; the nuances of Marxism are a matter for other articles, such as dictatorship of the proletariat; source after source after source after source after source after source does in fact use the proposed title, regardless of strict conformity to ideological dictates. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not about "ideological dictates". As I said, while it's certainly true that many reliable sources call this system "communism", it is equally true that many other reliable sources call it something else. For example, here are some that call it "socialism" or "state socialism": book, article, another book, book, book, another article. This includes major critics of communism, such as János Kornai. There is a genuine dispute among historians, economists and political scientists about what to call that system. KS79 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Having said that, I'd like to point out that I do agree with dropping the year from the title, which seems to be the main purpose of your proposal. I agree with it for the same reasons you listed. If you proposed simply dropping the year from the current title, my vote would switch to "weak support". KS79 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course there are impeccable sources labeling the Eastern European regimes of the late 1940s to the late 1980s "socialist", and with good reason. Having said that, there are two factors that should be guiding our decision here:
    • A title has to be concise and cannot indulge all sides of a debate. Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". I don't think anyone will really be misled if we say "communism" rather than "Communist Party rule". It's fairly clear what is meant.
    • A title must also, per the same policy, reflect "how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject".
  • I've brought in a few sources specifically referring to the events of 1989. What you show are general discussions of the Hungarian regime. Given that we are talking about a widely publicized phenomenon that took place less than a quarter of a century ago and was extensively written about, I hope it's not too much to ask for sources featuring an alternate name. That is what WP:UCN asks: that we pick "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first factor you mentioned, it is possible to have an article title that will not mislead anyone - that is to say, everyone will understand what it refers to - while at the same time being inappropriate for other reasons. For example, suppose we called this article Hungarian liberation of 1989, or Hungarian catastrophe of 1989. Would everyone instantly know which events it was about? Sure. But these titles are completely inappropriate for other reasons (namely, they are extremely POV and no one uses them). In fact, virtually any combination of words that includes "1989" and "Hungary/Hungarian" would meet the criterion of being enough to clearly identify this article's subject. Even something as vague as 1989 in Hungary would work for that purpose. This is probably the most concise unambiguous title we could come up with, and it's also probably one that is used by a lot of people (in many Central-East European countries, the number "89" is the most common shorthand way of referring to the events of that year in that country), but that doesn't make it the best title. Being clear and concise is important, but it is not the only concern. How reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject is also important, but in this case I don't think there is any single consensus name for it. Variations on "transition", "revolution", and "fall" are all in common use. I see that you have provided some alternative title options yourself, in the discussion for a previous renaming proposal above. If we are to use a name that is found verbatim in the sources (as opposed to merely being similar to and compatible with some of the common names used in the sources), then I really like your second proposal, Hungarian transition to democracy. It is just as concise and unambiguous as "fall of communism", it does not suffer from the problem of taking sides in a debate, and I think it is equally prevalent in the sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. The only possible problem I can see is that the term "Hungarian transition", by itself, is often used to refer to the economic transformation to capitalism, which took several years, as opposed to the political events of 1989. But adding "...to democracy" clears up that ambiguity, and is enough to properly identify the subject. KS79 (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, that is a second choice for me. It's certainly been used in all the right places (i.e., academic works), but "fall of communism" seems more common. Anyway, if this RM fails, maybe we'll take a third crack by proposing the "transition" title. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm basically with Biruitorul on this, but I just want to note again I really don't see how "end of communism" is so contentious or POV. Additionally, it is not required that a title be "universally accepted" anyway, since very often there is no universally accepted title. Even the most dyed-in-wool Marxist surely knows what is being referred to by default by "Fall of communism in Hungary," and I doubt any would claim we are trying to push the POV that Hungary was a futuristic classless utopia, or that Wikipedia is trying to unfairly tarnish "pure communism" by associating it with a discredited regime. SnowFire (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt any would claim we are trying to push the POV [...] that Wikipedia is trying to unfairly tarnish "pure communism" by associating it with a discredited regime -- Regardless of perceived or actual intention, a title like "Fall of communism in Hungary" does actually achieve exactly that: it uses the generic (lowercase) term for the political notion. So the question is rather: Why would anyone be opposed to using uppercase "Communism" or "Communist Party" rather than the generic term? --89.0.220.231 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. "End" is neutral and descriptive, whereas "fall" is emotional, and appears biased. I also agree with KS79 regarding upper-case Communist to denote the end of the so-called "Communist" system or Communist Party rule rather than the end of communism as a political idea. --89.0.220.231 (talk) 13:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • All right, we've officially jumped the shark here. First the problem was "1989", then it was "communism", now it's "fall". I suppose the only remaining imaginary issue is going to be with "Hungary". In the real world, no one (by which I mean no academic work) takes any issue with any of these, and this whole "it wasn't really communism, so we can't call it that" line, as well as the "'fall' is a loaded term" line, is Wikipedia-style pedantry, not a substantive argument that deserves serious consideration.
  • But since we are supposed to have a uniform look and feel, will one of you nominate Fall of communism in Albania to be moved to End of Communism in Albania (1991)? At least then we'll be consistent, if consistently laughable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • not a substantive argument that deserves serious consideration. -- That's obviously not for you to decide, but for community consensus. If you're going to arbitrarily exclude substantial parts of the academic debate, the burden of proof for justifying that rests with you. Why do you argue that we should change from the current uppercase "Communism" (and forego the imho even more neutrally descriptive "Communist State") in favor of the universal term "communism", when there is substantial academic disagreement over whether "Communist Hungary" was ever communist in anything but name? Would you also call it "Wikipedia-style pedantry" if someone argued that the "German Democratic Republic" wasn't actually democratic? Or would you seriously argue that the end of the GDR as a nation state should be described as the "Fall of democracy in East Germany"?
    • Also, with regard to "fall" vs. "end": Again, the current title uses "end". You are the one who wants to change it to "fall", and therefore you should demonstrate how that makes for a more accurate and neutral title.
    • And finally, please mind WP:CIVIL. Please don't call my input "Wikipedia-style pedantry, not a substantive argument" or "consistently laughable". It creates the impression that you really have nothing to offer in the way of actual arguments for the changes you're proposing. Thank you. --85.197.57.70 (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
      • It's obviously not for you to decide what's not for me to decide. I've decided, even if you choose not to take that into account.
      • The academic debate is a very interesting one that deserves all our attention, but at communist state, not in the title of one article on one communist state. (Or socialist state, if you prefer.)
      • The case does not really matter, but since we use lowercase routinely, there is no compelling argument for an uppercase letter here. Uppercase C does not denote something different from lowercase. Or if it does, you'd have to show that.
      • The point about East Germany is a non-argument. All the satellite states (Poland, Hungary, East Germany, etc.) were "communist" in the sense that they were ruled by communist parties, and in all of them, one can speak of the "fall of communism in..." Of course, some have more specific names for the process, and we use them - e.g., Die Wende. That is not the case for Hungary, as far as I'm aware, so we need a generic title.
      • Sorry, but fall/end really is too sterile a topic to arouse anyone's interest. Call it consistency with the Albania article, if you like. But there is nothing - nothing - remotely lacking in objectivity about "fall". Too many academic sources freely use both terms to take seriously the idea that one trumps the other in neutrality.
      • Yes, worrying about such trifles does amount to insubstantial Wikipedia-style pedantry, and the present title is, in its way, rather risible. (Do note that while no one strongly objects, no one has strongly championed in this precise form either.) The policy doesn't allow insults, but says nothing about observations. I don't think anyone would take serious offense at being accused of pedantry, though if that is the case, my apologies.
      • Oh, and to the closing administrator, this IP has been blocked for disruption, for what it's worth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fortunately, your bias makes it impossible for you to argue coherently, so this request will be closed as no consensus. But let me respond to your ramblings by point:
  It's obviously not for you to decide what's not for me to decide. -- Nonsense. You said that the points I brought up are "not a substantive argument that deserves serious consideration." That's very obviously not for you to decide, but for the community. You merely "decided" to insult me in lieu of making your case.
  The academic debate is a very interesting one that deserves all our attention, but at communist state, not in the title of one article on one communist state. -- Wrong again, and since you are the one who requested a move from uppercase Communism to lowercase communism, you are the one who has to explain your request. Plain and simple, no two ways about it.
  The case does not really matter, but since we use lowercase routinely, there is no compelling argument for an uppercase letter here. -- It has been explained to you inhowfar it matters. More importantly though, if it truly didn't matter to you, then you obviously wouldn't have made the move from current uppercase to lowercase a part of your request.
  fall/end really is too sterile a topic to arouse anyone's interest -- That's self-evident nonsense once again: You made that very change a part of your request. If in your opinion it actually doesn't matter, then why did you suggest that change?
  Yeah, Fram and me go way back, nevermind that. Although if it prevents you from reading and understanding my arguments, then feel free to ignore them. I'm confident the closing admin will not. --89.0.250.135 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
• Since this is apparently an indef blocked user from the linked discussions, yes, yes the closing admin should disregard you entirely. SnowFire (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Communism vs. socialism?

The statement that the attempt to make the country communist ended in 1957 and from then on the country was socialist does not make sense to me... All the 'communist' countries in East Europe were socialist countries that were supossedly trying to achieve communism, so what is the difference that the article is trying to make? ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree about that. The title must be changed immediately as its inherently anticommunist. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)