Talk:Communist state/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Section 5:2 spelling error

"Marxst" =>> "Marxist" . Thanks for the unbiased page providing viewpoints from first world and second world people. Unfortunately, having a spelling mistake, means that because More information is Better is a great axiom for wikipedia to strive towards, one person (myself) will spend quarter of an hour searching the internet for "Marxst" (haha.) Unless of course that was a purposeful neologism conveying the idea that "there's no I in Marxism" (similar to the euphemism "There's no I in team." In which case, great. Grazi.

Current communist states

Why does this section not include North Korea? The map does include North Korea though. North Korea may not be guided by Marxism-Leninism anymore, but it's still a communist state as far as I know.

Earlier in the article, it clearly states, "Today, the existing communist states in the world are in China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam."

This sentence in the section, "They are adherents of Marxism–Leninism" -> can be changed to "They are adherents of Marxism–Leninism except North Korea with juche idealogy." 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:0:0:0:10A9 (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article mentions North Korea multiple times. Actualcpscm (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Country	Local name	Since	Ruling party
People's Republic of China	Chinese: 中华人民共和国 Pinyin: Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó	1 October 1949 (1949-10-01)	Chinese Communist Party
Republic of Cuba	Spanish: República de Cuba	1 January 1959 (1959-01-01)	Communist Party of Cuba
Lao People's Democratic Republic	Lao: ສາທາລະນະລັດ ປະຊາທິປະໄຕ ປະຊາຊົນລາວ Lao romanisation: Sathalanalat Paxathipatai Paxaxon Lao	2 December 1975 (1975-12-02)	Lao People's Revolutionary Party
Socialist Republic of Vietnam	Vietnamese: Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam	2 September 1945 (North Vietnam) 30 April 1975 (South Vietnam) 2 July 1976 (unified)	Communist Party of Vietnam

I'm referring to this table in the "Current communist states" section. Why North Korea is not included? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:B8E3:6E37:8761:4A85 (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Please ensure that edit requests are clear and specific :) Actualcpscm (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

If we're going by the actual definition, no "communist states" exist or have ever existed. The list should be removed from this article, as it's also a poorer WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of socialist states#Current socialist states where North Korea is properly categorized. -Vipz (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2023

Add North Korea to the table titled "Overview of current communist states" in the section Current communist states.

The preceding text says:

The following countries are one-party states in which the institutions of the ruling communist party and the state have become intertwined. They are adherents of Marxism–Leninism or its derivatives, such as Juche.

The accompanying map also includes North Korea.

However, North Korea is missing from the table itself. 2601:547:B05:3D9B:F157:B7D:A12B:D1EA (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Not done for two reasons. First and foremost, that table is a template. That means that although it's INCLUDED in this page, it's not constructed here. If you want to discuss the content of the template, head over to Template_talk:History_of_Communist_Nations. Secondly, at the aforementioned template page, the current consensus seems to be to leave North Korea in its current location on the table. PianoDan (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops - I realize you weren't talking about the template, but about the table later in the article. In that case, I would say you need to develop a consensus here on the talk page before any edit to the main page would be made. PianoDan (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

North Korea

By almost any reasonable definition, North Korea is not a Communist country. This was explained in Template talk:History of Communist Nations. If there is no opposition to this, I will update this article to make it consistent with the template. --Antondimak (talk) 08:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I should note that the situation is not the same as before. I wasn't aware that since last year North Korea has started reinserting Communist terminology into its ruling party documents. I don't think this is enough to qualify if as a self-proclaimed Communist state, as there is no proclaimed goal of Communism in the constitution anymore, but I think it's an important caveat to note. --Antondimak (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Juche replaced Communism in the constitution however this was only a change of words, there wasn't any drastic change in government policy. Juche is also a derivative of Marxist-Leninism; a unique expression of it. Just like how Socialism with Chinese characteristics is also a derivative of Marxist-Leninism, but Juche is much closer to Marxist-Leninism than Chinese Socialism, & yet China is still considered Communist, & only because China still calls itself a Communist country. North Korea is still Communist even if they go by a different name. We shouldn't say that China is Communist but not say the same about North Korea. TheFriendlyFas2 (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to policy North Korea was far from Communist long before the change to Juche. Almost the only reason we call China Communist is because it calls itself that. In North Korea's case we don't have that either.

I agree China isn't really Communist, it's non-Socialist society that calls itself Socialist, with the government claiming it intends to reach Communism. That's almost the closest we have however, as by using the basic definition, essentially no country is or ever was Communist. And just because China doesn't have a particularly strong claim to the name, it doesn't mean North Korea should be called that as well. In that case we may as well call Saudi Arabia, another contemporary absolute monarchy, Communist. --Antondimak (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antondimak: That logic would entail the removal of every country in that list. So why did you selectively remove North Korea, specifically? 2601:547:B05:1E9C:49D6:994F:BEBC:3070 (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I see no way in which it would. The other countries officially proclaim Socialism or Communism somewhere, as a reality or a goal. There is almost zero reason to add North Korea specifically. Do we add formerly Communist countries? In that case we should also add Lithuania. Do we add "dictatorships"? In that case we should add Saudi Arabia. --Antondimak (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antondimak: It says "The following countries are one-party states in which the institutions of the ruling communist party and the state have become intertwined. They are adherents of Marxism–Leninism or its derivatives, such as Juche." Also, the Constitution of North Korea does officially proclaim Socialism and Communism. 2601:547:B05:3D9B:F157:B7D:A12B:D1EA (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a remnant from an older version of the article. The claim of Juche being a "derivative" of Marxism-Leninism is pretty weak, pretty much only made to justify North Korea's inclusion. It would make a similar amount of sense to consider Russia's current system a derivative of Marxism-Leninism. The constitution of North Korea has no mention of Communism, either as a goal or a current description of the country. That's the whole point. You can see it in the article you linked. --Antondimak (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antondimak: Where do the constitutions of Laos and Vietnam state Communism "as a goal or current description of the country"? 2601:547:501:8F90:B408:E8D3:C338:80EC (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The rules of the Workers' Party of Korea explicitly include a goal to building a communist society since 2021, though, and that the most important part. Additionally, the WPK has never officially turned against Marxism-Leninism; its party rules still state that it upholds the "revolutionary principles of Marxism–Leninism" (though this may be referencing to its historical status as another user has noted before). North Korean state media and Kim Jong-un himself also have started to make regular references to communism. Also, mentioning communism in the constitution is not strictly necessary to be considered a communist state; the East German constitution from 1949 had no references to either communism or Marxism-Leninism whatsoever, yet East Germany was still considered to be a communist state. The 1954 constitution of the People's Republic of China also didn't have references to communism or Marxism-Leninism. The current constitutions of Cuba and Vietnam don't have direct references calling the state Marxist-Leninist (and only indirect references calling their parties such) or having communism as a goal either. The Account 2 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I did mention that on a previous comment. The decision on the template to which this article is now conforming was taken before Kim Jong-Un's decision to return some older language into the Party documents. Apart from becoming an xenophobic militaristic ultra-nationalist regime, North Korea had also removed all mentions of Communism from its constitution and Party documents. Kim Jong-Un has restored mentions to the Party documents, but I don't think that's comparable to Vietnam or China, where the parties are and have always have been explicitly Communist, partly in their constitutions as well. It is however worth some discussion and that's why I mentioned it. --Antondimak (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can have a note that says many scholars dispute that WPK's claims of being communist and instead categorize it as adhering to an ethnic nationalist regime, similar to how it is in the main WPK page? That can be a reasonable compromise. We can also include to the note that WPK is not a traditional Marxist-Leninist system, and adheres to its own homegrown ideology. Another solution could be to change "communist states" to "Marxist-Leninist states", which would unambiguously mean that North Korea shouldn't be added, as the WPK has indeed formally abandoned Marxism-Leninism and has not attempted to reintroduce it (it is also better in the way that it's more precise; communist state sounds too vague). The Account 2 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the latter would be better, but it would still have problems. The whole idea of a "Communist state" was always fuzzy and is now pretty outdated. It essentially has nothing to do with actual policy, but with Cold War alignments, and now with symbolic remnants of those. However the term does exist and it is what the article is about, and almost the only way it can be made to work is if we use the countries' official self-identifications. The problem there is that very rarely have countries which are generally called Communist officially identified as such, using terms such as "Socialist society" or "advancing towards Communism", or being governed by a party with the same official goals.

In this sense North Korea stopped being Communist as it dropped the pretense and officially elevated tradition, the army, and the ruling family as the main pillars of society and the state, only partially reversing it on the party level in 2021. Leaving it more open and making the section about Marxist-Leninist states would probably be better. --Antondimak (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Antondimak: Can you answer the question regarding Laos and Vietnam? Where do their constitutions state Communism "as a goal or current description of the country"? We need consistent criteria. 2601:547:501:8F90:8D4B:84E9:7971:1077 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

They don't seem to currently do it directly. They have the Communist Party as the national authority and the party itself has that goal. The definition using Marxism-Leninism at least seems somewhat more robust as a criterion. --Antondimak (talk) 09:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is North Korea not listed?

The current version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state#Current_communist_states states: "The following countries are one-party states in which the institutions of the ruling communist party and the state have become intertwined. They are adherents of Marxism–Leninism or its derivatives, such as Juche." But North Korea isn't listed. 2601:547:B05:1E9C:49D6:994F:BEBC:3070 (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It isn't communist 149.20.252.132 (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@149.20.252.132: That would mean that China, a comparatively more liberal country, isn't communist either. 2601:547:500:2090:1C83:C902:E6DA:1F96 (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I have restructured this article to clarify specifically the unitary state power of the legislatures and how a ruling communist party monopolises state power. I think the best way to improve the article is to merge the "Ruling party" section with the legislature since the ruling party has to legitimate power without a majority in the legislature. A section should also be written about how the ruling party, through its control of the legislatures, organises election that re-produces a majority in it. I have also changed the heading "Political system" to "The state system of unitary state power" since, in communist systems state system also encompasses the economic system.

I would think a good structure would be:

1. The state system of unitary state power
   1. Legislatures as the highest organ of state power
      1. Unitary state power principle
      2. Communist party control of the legislature
      3. Representativity and functions
   2. Government as the highest administrative agency of state power
      1. Clarify that the government are utterly subservient to the legislatures (and through the legislature, the Party)
   3. Judicial organs
      1. clarify that these organs are utterly subservient to the legislatures (and through the legislature, the Party)
   4. Military
      1. OK sections, but fails to mention that the legislature elects the leading state authority of the armed forces.
   5. Head of state and supervisory institutions
      1. Missing.

Does anyone disagree? Does someone want to help improve this article? --TheUzbek (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is Venezuela not listed as Communist country?

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

• The article is an article on "communist state", not a list of countries that may or may not have been communist at some point. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It's on a more appropriate list instead: List of socialist states#States with governing communist or socialist parties. –Vipz (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 18 January 2024

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

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

---

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

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

• Support TheUzbek (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• oppose current title is a WP:NATURAL and sources use it so no sense complicating it—blindlynx 15:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  If so, why do articles on the USSR, China, et cetra, consistently link to socialist states? Why do constant discussions take place over the term communist state, which many believe to be an oxymoron and the consistent counter-argument that these states are socialist states? TheUzbek (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  That's not an issue with this title but rather of people's behaviour, This article is well sourced and is a good fork but perhaps people don't thinks so? could you link to some of these discussions?—blindlynx 15:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  Talk:China/Archive_16, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]

  Note that the "Government" description in the infoboxes uses the term "Communist state". I have changed it to "Communist state". The fact of the matter is that these states called themselves "socialist states" since the term communist state is an oxymoron (communism is generally believed to be stateless). TheUzbek (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Its an issue when users link to the wrong article making it harder for our readers to get access to proper information. TheUzbek (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  agreed but i don't think this is the ready for this porblem. The issue is that communism and socialism are different things sticking to official names or insisting that 'communism is stateless' both fail wp:v which isn't something we should address with a move that muddies things further—blindlynx 13:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  But how does "Socialist state (communism)" "muddies things further". It uses the official designation of these states "socialist state" and uses communism to clearly signify we are speaking about states governed by communist parties? I would think it clarifies more than it muddies.

  I am open to other suggestions, but as things are it clearly doesn't work... TheUzbek (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think people will use the new title any more than this one, i don't know if there's an easy solution here unfortunately—blindlynx 16:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  here. I added communist state and a user has argued against the term. TheUzbek (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Here is another revert. I added communist state to the Polish People's Republic, and it was reverted based on this argument; "It wasn't a Communist State, if it was Communist, there wouln't be a State, because in an Communist society, there don't exist a State" TheUzbek (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, no reasoned rational provided. --Yorkporter (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  That these states call themselves "socialist state" is not a reasoned rationale? No communist state has ever called itself a socialist state. TheUzbek (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't really understand the rationale. The present title appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME for this and is also WP:NATURALDIS.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – I apologize, but the unwillingness of editors on the cited pages to reference the "Communist State" page sound like the problem, not this page. Agreed with Common Name concerns, I think prioritizing correctness in Marxist jargon over commonly-understood descriptors is unencyclopedic. Garnet Moss (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If certain WP editors "refuse" to link to the correct article, that is a behavioral matter that needs to go to ANI probably.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
• Weak support; it would make the title less of an oxymoron. However, I think a title closer to “Marxist-Leninist state” would be preferable. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 15:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pre-move proposal discussion

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

Agree, it is completely oxymoronic. Not to mention that there have been socialist projects that were not Marxist-Leninist in nature, although were/are still in fact ideologically communist, for example, Revolutionary Catalonia, EZLN-controlled Mexico, Post-Independence Tanzania, etc. digiulio8 (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with move to 'Marxist–Leninist state' per @Vipz (OP) and @digiulio8. -Gluonz (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Makes more sense TheUzbek (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz Since it doesn't seem there's been any opposition, should a formal move proposal be initiated? -Gluonz (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gluonz: I don't think it's worth initiating it at this time because it's going to get squashed by the "common name" argument, but you're free to act on your own accord. Cheers. –Vipz (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz 👍 -Gluonz (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vipz and Gluonz: What about moving the article to "Socialist state (Marxism–Leninism)"? --TheUzbek (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Firstly, North Korea's ruling party, the Worker's Party of Korea, is often described as communist but not Marxist-Leninist. Secondly, I don't think it's oxymoronic at all; "communist state" - or better yet "Communist state" quite clearly refers to a "form of government that combines the state leadership of a communist party, Marxist–Leninist political philosophy, and an official commitment to the construction of a communist society" - emphasis mine; there is fundamental reference to the ideology of Communism, not communism as a political reality. References to "political philosophy" and "commitment" clearly reinforce the emphasis on ideology. Zilch-nada (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, the problem is that the majority here on Wikipedia don't. Just look at the infobox description of the government at People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Users would much rather want a "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian dictatorship" than a "Communist state", which is, for me, absolutely amazing! TheUzbek (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Communist state

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

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

How does this paragraph deal with the communist form of government? It deals about victims of communist states, but not about the form of government of communist states. Don't you agree?

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

"Philipp Ther posits that there was an increase in the standard of living throughout Eastern Bloc countries as the result of modernisation programs under communist governments" ... This is not about the form of government; form of government means the political system. This is about something else, like the merits of communism.

Just to be clear, I want to have a good criticism/analysis section, but it has to deal with the topic at hand.

TheUzbek (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The material is an analysis of policies carried out by communist states, some of which yielded positive results and others negative, and therefore is relevant to this section. You are bending over backwards attempting to demonstrate that this is somehow undue for this article, which I strongly disagree.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@C.J. Griffin That is your interpretation of my edits. Policies are not the same as form of government, and I think this should be moved to the criticism of communism article.

Would you add failed capitalist policies in the article liberal democracy? I think we both know the answer to this question :) But leave it be. I'll rewrite. TheUzbek (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Your comments only seem to address that material in the Memory sub-section you want moved to criticism of communism, but you also deleted two paragraphs which appear before that sub-section on state policies which bolstered modernization, industrialization and an increased standard of living. That is certainly relevant here. If you wish to move the Memory section to Criticism of communist party rule I would not object to that, especially if there is consensus here on talk. However the two preceding paragraphs should remain as they are not criticisms and should not be moved there.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

If we can agree on removing the memorials section, I say we do that. As for you're point on the standard of living and health that should be covered by articles devoted to that subject, such as Communism and health and Standard of living in communist states (or Economies of communist states).. Which are articles Wikipedia currently lacks. TheUzbek (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but until such articles are created the material is given its due weight here. In addition I think a brief summary of the memory section can be included here with a link to its new home in the other article if consensus allows for it to be moved.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

San Marino was a communist state from 1945-1957 under the Sammarinese Communist Party. Currently in the "Previous communist states" section, San Marino is not present. Polskaball.420 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The section you're talking about is within the Template:History of Communist Nations, not a part of this article. Edits to the template should be done on the template itself, not here on the article where it's just transcluded . Additionally, I question whether this actually made San Marino a communist state, or just a state with a communist (or to be precise, a communist/socialist coalition) government. Liu1126 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Bavarian Soviet Republic not on the map of Communist states

The short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic had an extreme-left government of short duration that showed obvious imitation of the nascent Soviet state, but is not shown on the world map of "Communist states". Its motto was Karl Marx' Workers of the World, Unite! Pbrower2a (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

These were very short-lived and internationally unrecognized List of socialist states § Ephemeral socialist states and polities. I don't think they warrant inclusion on the map of communist states. –Vipz (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Did it have a constitution specifically implying that it followed Marxism-Leninism? I would assume not, given that it existed solely in 1919. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

First lede paragraph changes

@Altenmann first, can you name some examples of multi-party communist states you have in mind? Communism is the ideology according to which communist parties govern and administer states that we call communist states. It does not make sense to state that a state is governed by an ideology itself. And please acknowledge standard practice among scholars on capitalization of the words derived from "Communism" (see [Note 3] in the lede of article Communism). –Vipz (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That's easy: GDR, Communist Poland. I agree with your second and third concerns, fixed. - Altenmann >talk 18:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. One can argue that multipartyism was kinda formal there, but they did have several parties. I also fixed my sloppy edit about Marxism-Leninism. - Altenmann >talk 18:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Allowing a few minor parties that are subservient/subordinate to the ruling party doesn't exactly disqualify one as a one-party state. Such parties were and still are pretty standard in most one-party states, North Korea for example. –Vipz (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I see I didnt pay attention to the text of "one-party state". Undone. But I this needs clarification, so I rephrased a bit. - Altenmann >talk 19:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the first sentence needs to be briefer, akin to the previous version. You've made it too long and wordy by performing some kind of a merge of the first two sentences. –Vipz (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

OK splitting restored, although the text "...Marxism–Leninism. Marxism–Leninism..." looks weird and clutterish to me. I was taught that long sentences are OK as long as its logic is sequential, i.e., without complicated conditional clauses. But well, modern readers demand less memory... :-) - Altenmann >talk 19:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way to avoid repeating ML like that, e.g. [...] adhering to some form of Marxism–Leninism, a branch of communist ideology. Marxism–Leninism was [...]? –Vipz (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverted bold removal

@Altenmann Hello, just following you up on your reversal of my admittedly bold removal. My logic is that the "Analysis" section of the "Communist state" article should thoroughly analyse communist states (e.g., economic aspects, socialist economic planning, among others), not a different regime that followed.

I have two further reasons: 1) The sources cited refer to the discourse on communism in relation the capitalism that followed (which is a different topic), and 2) The sources' main topic is not about analysis of communist states. I think the comparison could be made to the analysis of the Russian Empire by considering the chaos of the Russian Revolution / first Soviet decade, or analysis of the Ancien Regime by considering the French Revolution. Those characteristics would perhaps be suitable for a "Legacy" section - although not overstated - but certainly not under an "analysis" of "communist states" themselves - a different topic. Thanks. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I understood this myself after some thinking, therefore I self-reverted. The two deleted pieces were not about communist state, but about results of "shock therapy" of rapid destruction of what basically was welfare state (said with caveats). Gorbachev tried to perform a smooth transition to whatever he had in mindd, but he underestimated how rotten the regime was. Of course, it is a separate subject. - Altenmann >talk 04:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this rationale for removal. The sources cited do not talk about the 1990s period by itself, but explicitly in relation to the communist period that came before. They are comparing the communist and post-communist periods in the history of certain countries. I think this fits within the subject of this article very well. It is normal for sources to compare two consecutive historical periods with each other, and those kinds of sources can be used in the articles for either period (or both). For example, looking at the article for the Ancien Regime, I see numerous references to the French Revolution in the article text, and several sources that talk about the revolutionary period that followed.

Analysis of the Ancien Regime by considering the French Revolution is not just possible, but extremely common. And in general, this holds true for the periods before/after a major change in almost any country's history. History books and other authors make before/after comparisons very frequently. I do not agree with excluding such "before/after sources" from the article about the "before" period (or the article about the "after" period either, they can be used in both).

I do agree that the sources under discussion would probably be better suited for a "Legacy" section, or for the end of a "History" section. But right now, the article does not have those sections (it doesn't even have a History section, which is a problem). "Analysis" appears to be a catch-all for all sorts of things that could go in "History", "Legacy", etc. It may be a good idea to rework some (or all) of the "Analysis" section into "History", "Legacy", and other sections in the future.

For now, I don't think we should remove sourced information just because the most appropriate section for that information hasn't been created yet. It's fine to place information in a less than perfect location in the article if the best location doesn't exist. The information under discussion here is obviously related to communist states, and not off topic for the article. It may simply need to be moved, when the article gets more sections or is reorganized. - Small colossal (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a) that legacy is a separate topic from overall analysis, and that b) a separate "legacy" section should thus be made, including the aforesaid content. I am still not entirely sure that the legacy section should FOCUS on the downfall as it does in e.g. the communism article (an issue I previously raised there in talk) but accept at least some mention of pre- and post-1991 contrast. Legacy encompasses more than post-1991 public memory, for instance; e.g., Solzhenitsyn and various dissidents wrote of legacy DURING the Soviet Union - that is still an analysis of legacy. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just taken a closer look over the article as a whole, and I think it's poorly organized in general. I mean the information is fine, but its organization into sections has problems. Topics that should be in one section are frequently split between several sections, and the section names make it hard to decide what should go where. The first two sections are named "Overview" and "State" for example. What goes in a section named "State" in an article about communist states? Everything could theoretically belong there. "Analysis" isn't very specific either: Analysis of what? Analysis of the communist government structure? Analysis of the end of this system and its replacement? Analysis of some detail about communist states, like (as a random example) the kinds of propaganda they produced? Comparative analysis of communist states and other types of states? Any of these, and many other topics, could theoretically count as an "analysis". The section name isn't very descriptive, and several other sections have the same problem. So I think you may be right about the need for a "Legacy" section, but also in general a lot of things should probably be reorganized, with better section names. - Small colossal (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The entire article is an "analysis" after all. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)