Talk:Communist state

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)