Talk:Communist state/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Requested move 16 February 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 11:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

---

Communist state → Marxist-Leninist state – 95% of article deals with "Marxist-Leninist state". The bit about "Communist state" is the definition only and should be moved to Etymology section or Wiktionary. – Zozs (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment This does not appear uncontroversial per the discussion at Talk:Communist_state#Common_misnomer_-_there_can_be_no_such_thing_as_a_.22communist_state.22_in_communist_political_theory. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment The only thing I see there is people being against article name "Communist state", which is the current name. I see no one being against the new name. Zozs (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Well, I object. Communist state is the WP:Common name. People in the US generally refer to the Soviet Union as a Communist state, not a Marxist-Leninist state. That this would be controversial should be a no-brainer. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Regardless of argumentation, in English a state of Communists is commonly called a "communist state". 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see where your coming from with this and it makes some sense but the problem is that not alll parties mentioned on this list are Marxist-Leninist. TURTLOS (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, it is common usage. Spumuq (talq) 15:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Coatrack

Zozs, stop WP:COATRACK, there is no consensus for your change, this article is about "Communist state", not your beliefs about "Marxism-Leninism". Spumuq (talq) 18:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Every single section of the article was already talking exclusively about Marxist-Leninist states (this includes "Types of socialist states", "State institutions", "State social institutions", "Political power", "Criticism", "Modern period", "List of current socialist states", and so on). All I did was add more information (where did I write about my beliefs?). There's no consensus for your reverts either. Of course, this just is the next item in your campaign of removing sourced information contributed by me massively (anyone just check Spumuq's edit history to see what I'm talking about). Zozs (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is self-described as a Democratic republic, though it is neither a republic or a democracy. Likewise we should be careful about whatever the self-described name of Stalin's state was. The premise in requesting a move of Communist state to Marxist-Leninist state should be that, although the two terms are synonyms describing the same topic, the latter is a better name for some reason such as it's the more WP:common name. However from the proposer's rationale "95% of article deals with "Marxist-Leninist state", I get the sense that they feel that the two terms are not synonymous. 100% of the article should be about Communist state and Marxist-Leninist state, as they are the same thing. Since Communist state is the more common term, that's the term that should be used more often. If there is truly a difference between those two terms, then that difference needs to be clearly described because it's clear as mud to me. Yes, I get the idea that the communist ideal of the "stateless society" was never achieved. I'll suggest that we think of the difference between a state and stateless communist society in similar terms as a direct and representative democracy. As we have an article on types of democracy, should we have one on types of communism? I see, that article is called "types of socialism". Wbm1058 (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC) A large scale pure democracy is about as rare as a large scale pure communist society. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not removed any information relating to another meaning of the term, so this comment must only be relevant to the requested move discussion and not this one - the former was already closed. Zozs (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"Communist state" is an established term. Soviet Union ideology called it "socialist state", but that would be confusing (and the article socialist state must be thoroughly disambiguated). I second the opinion that there is no reason to split hairs and have several flavors of a handful of comm states: Maoist state? Stalinist state? Trotskyist state? The latter would be my fav: as Viktor Suvorov aptly noted, while millions were in Stalin's labor camps, the whole country would have been in Trotsky's labor army. -M.Altenmann >t 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And where was any information about communist state removed by me? Zozs (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Here. Please elaborate on why you removed that, i.e. why it is "Redundant". Wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The only text I removed was:

The states ruled by communist political parties nonetheless self-identified as socialist states rather than as "communist states", because they did not consider themselves to have achieved the classless and stateless society known as communism. In Marxism, communism is the final phase of history at which time the state would have "withered away" and therefore "communist state" is a contradiction in terms under premises of this definition. Current states are either in the capitalist or socialist phase of history – making the term "socialist state" preferable to many communists and Marxist theorists..

It was removed because it was a section based on only one small redundant paragraph - everything it said was already said in the lead, which said: "the system in use in the Soviet Union and the states modeled after it (i.e., "communist states") - which claimed to have reached socialism, not communism", "The state ruled by the working class during the transition into classless society[...]", "The term "Communist state" is an oxymoron (a contradiction on itself) as a communist society is stateless", and even more. Zozs (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize everything that is in the article body. Did this orphan text in the lead, such as it wasn't summarizing anything in the body? Perhaps the better aproach here would have been to tighten the lead's discussion of this matter so that it just briefly mentioned the key idea. I'm not a big tagger, but right now this article is borderline for getting a {{lead too long}} tag.

I see that the distinction between communist state and socialist state is kind of muddy. Nordic model is what I associate more with socialism. There's a spectrum here though, and where the lines between communist and socialist are drawn may be somewhat arbitrary. See Socialist Party. Few of these parties advocate the type of socialism practiced by Lenin and his immediate successors, I suspect. That's why we use the term communism for the latter. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

This is getting offtopic. Zozs (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's get on-topic. So here is my summary.

1. The non-Communist common term for this kind of state is "Communist state", period. This article in not written from the Communist/Trotskyist/Maoist point of view. Their terminology may be duly noted in our article, but that's it. You seem to be in a minority in this respect, so please accept it. Otherwise you are free to start RoteFahnePedia. (You know, Conservapedia is doing great, yes?)
2. It seems a vast majority of C-states are the "ML-states" in leftist parlance. Therefore we don't think it is necessary to split hairs here. If there are exceptions (i.e. C-states which are not ML-states), treat them as exceptions.
3. If you have non-fringe sources that discuss why it is important to distinguish ML-states among all stated ruled by C-parties, you may have a separate section to nail it down. Until then Zozs is welcome to expand the article keeping the terminology consistent, that's how wikipedia articles are written. (Heck, someone even tried to throw in the term "socialist state" referring to the topic of this article; I fixed). If you feel it important, in the footnotes you may clarify this-and-that authort used the term "ML-state" (and Leninites themselves may have even used the trm S-state, but we know what they meant, right?)
4. You may have a temptation to bud off a separate "Marxist-Leninst state" page. In this case please internalize the first sentence of the previous item. Otherwise this new page will be shut down as POV-fork, your energy wasted.

Any other suggestions? -M.Altenmann >t 02:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

1. I didn't remove any information in this article about "Communist state". I simply re-organized information and added information about the Marxist-Leninist state, which is the subject the article was already primarily dealing with. Exactly when did I add information from a Trotskyist, Maoist, or communist point of view? All info is from reliable, independent sources.
2. That's how it's already done.
3. Why exactly are you against me adding information about the Marxist-Leninist state in this article while naming it the Marxist-Leninist state?
4. Everything in this page is already about the Marxist-Leninist state. The lead, which in any case explains that "Communist state" does not really mean much, simply explains the relation of "Communist state" to "Marxist-Leninist state". Zozs (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I must agree with majority here. This edit was aimed at replacing well-established term "Communist state" by the significantly less common expression "Marxist-Leninist state", even if both terms mean exactly the same. One should note that we had a separate page about Marxist-Leninist state some time ago, and it was merged. My very best wishes (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it was aimed at explaining what the "communist state" is based on (Marxism-Leninism), the ideological and historical basis for certain components of the "communist state" such as "socialism". Removing it completely, instead of improving it, does not make any sense and is against Wikipedia policy. Looks like a desperate need to remove information rather than changing terminology. The problem is: All of you know my terminology makes sense and yours doesn't, which is why you won't "fix" my edit to use your terminology. Zozs (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, perhaps some of your changes could be agreeable, however when you make massive changes there will be always certain issues people disagree with. If you wish to improve this page, please do it by small pieces and wait until other agree or possibly modify your changes. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

How about both of you simply stop removing sourced information massively and rather stick to improving the article? It is clear what happened here: User:Spumuq, who is now blocked for half a month because of edit stalking me, reverted my edit in this article just like he reverts my edits everywhere and created an edit war. Then you and another user, both of whom followed me from other articles to here, for some reason did not like the new information added (maybe just because it's me -- since you've both been looking at my history and been following me from article to article), took the opportunity to create a fake consensus and revert me based on edit warring and the arguments "Don't edit war" and "original research". (where is one bit of original research?) You both also backed yourselves in a discussion about a requested move, which is unrelated to my edit (my edit doesn't remove any information about "Communist state", it simply adds information about the "Marxist-Leninist state" and some information that actually pertains to the latter is renamed). Zozs (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Detailed explanation of problems witt text of Zozs

The version on the right has the following problems:

• Contrary to edit summary "add back sourced information", the version removed a number of my edits aimed at bringing the text to structure accepted in wikipedia.
• "Communist state" is a Western term" - wikipedia article usually is not about terms, it is about concepts. Besides, it is western (english) encyclopedia, so it is only natural to use "Western term" whenever it exists.
• The big chunk staring with "In the theories of German philosopher Karl Marx, a state in any society is an instrument " does not belong to lede, which should be article summary, not explanation of marxist terminology for readers
• Section "Stalinist ideological basis for socialism" is verbatim copy from a paragraph from Marxism–Leninism, which itself is highly problematic, but I will not discuss it here., sufficient to say it is redundant
• "Marxist-Leninist state" term and section - zozs refers to Nicholas Eberstadt for definition. Eberstadt discusses Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, Mongolia, Cuba, and Vietnam. even considering North Korea a special case - all of them are what is called "Communist states", and excluding the definition, the whole section is applied to "communist state". Therefore if someone can make good sense at explaining how North Korea is different, it may be done in a separate section, rather then proliferating the term "M-L state" all over this article, unless zozs can find compelling references that the term "Communist state" is propagated by fringe minority of Western scholars ignorant of internal squabbles of communists.

It is always possible to have a section which criticizes the term.

There has been lots of efforts to find a good insulting term for what's happening in Communist states: Degenerated workers' state, Deformed workers' state, Bureaucratic collectivism, etc. etc. Why zozs thinks that the term "M-L state" is better (bearing in mind his theory that ML is nothing but Stalin's invention) is unclear. By the way, the terms I listed were an attempt to explain what went wrong in Communist states by slapping a good sticker. Well, all went wrong. A whole series of articles may be written about this (as well as "Criticsm" section expanded. -M.Altenmann >t 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I wrote I am abandoning any discussions of the subject. The above is an answer to zoz's edit summary " user has not been able to explain how it is 'original research'", so I am following wikipedia rules which require explain edits. So, in summary, I see edits of zozs as "original research" because his edits try to replace the term "communist state" with the term "Marxist-Leninist state" without (a) proving that the majority of researchers assume that the term "C state" is wrong or (b) showing that a significant number of researcher chose to draw a distinction between the terms "C state" and "ML state".

There have been only so many C-states. If one starts digging, you may find that each of them had a unique flavor. All these subtleties may be described in the corresponding individual articles. But all C-states have lots in common, and this is the subject of the current article. -M.Altenmann >t 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I mostly agree with these points. To put it simple, "Communist states" are those governed by "Communist Parties". The communist parties may be self-declared "communist" (as CPSU) or "communist" per sources (as in North Korea). My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Communist states do not exist, this article shouldn't even exist, it should be merged with the socialist state page. TURTLOS (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

How come? Google books search gives 173,000 hits: [2]. The "communist states" do exist according to RS, and only this matters. What exactly they mean as a "communist state" is another mater. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't "remove" your edits. What your edit did was move part of the lead to another section. I modified the text so that it was good enough to be included in the lead and re-integrated it into the lead.

• "Communist state is a Western term" is not part of my recent edit - it has been standing in this article for months. It also is saying literally what the source says. English Wikipedia describes things from a world wide perspective, and even from a Western perspective a Western term is a Western term...
• This is nothing but repeating your first point. The paragraph about Marxism is short and clearly relevant to the topic.

• It is copied from another article - so what? You say it is problematic, but refuse to explain how - it isn't. And given that 'socialism' is one of the basic characteristics of the 'Communist state', it is relevant to explain where the ideological basis for the 'socialism' comes from.

• Why should the concept "Marxist-Leninist state" not be used in the article "Communist state"? It clearly is relevant to explain what this concept means. They are all called "Communist states" - so what? Again: I never removed anything about the "Communist state". I simply added information about the concept "Marxist-Leninist state".

You still have been unable to explain your original complaints - OR and SYNTH. You only made an assorted collection of complains about how you dislike the new version. Zozs (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought it was explained to you many times: Your OR that ML-states is something very special and should not be called C-state. your WP:SYNH is collecting references which happen to use term ML-state to make an illusion of the support of your theory, while as I demonstrated, the author of ref lists the very states which are commonly called C-states. And which are also called Deformed workers' states, and many other "explanatory" names. -M.Altenmann >t 08:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right My very best wishes whether or not this should be merged into socialist state is another matter. if this page isn't to be merged with socialist state i propose that it should be changed to either Leninist state or Marxist-Leninist state or maybe Marxist socialist state but communist state is just a colloquial term for nations run by Leninist vanguard parties. TURTLOS (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you provide reliable references that it is nothing but a colloquial term, then we can discuss this. -M.Altenmann >t 08:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

re: "Why should the concept "Marxist-Leninist state" not be used " - I did not sat it should not be used. I said it may be used, but in a separate sectioopn which explains the term. In the rest of the article the uniform term must beused, per wikipedia style guideline. As you may know, in wikipedia you cannot write both "color" and "colour" in the same article, somebody will come and fix it. the same happens here with your "ML-state" idea. -M.Altenmann >t 08:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no need for source for my statement, it is just a general fact that a communist state is a colloquial term mostly used to by anti-communists and people who do not have a great deal of knowledge about communism. TURTLOS (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

if you think that you don't need source for things that affect wikipedia articles then you don't understand how wikipedia works and you may want to start from reading WP:V. -M.Altenmann >t 16:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That is for more for new information, controversial information or unclear information (e.g. u don't need to cite that the USA's capital city is Washington DC). the fact that a communist society is a stateless society proves that a communist state is an oxymoron and that communist state is an incorrect and colloquial term. TURTLOS (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You can write whatever you want in the talk page, but the article will require reference, because your logic is faulty and challenged in this talk page numerous times. And no, I am not going to prove why you are wrong, it is your business to provide reference when challenged. -M.Altenmann >t 16:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

What is so faulty about my logic. I think i may have misunderstood the meaning of the word colloquial but still communist state is an incorrect term. Try not to focus on the miss use of one word but instead explain about the ideas i am discussing. TURTLOS (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Too many "isms"

I have not read the preceding section, but just have a thought to share. Feel free to dismiss it as off topic (well, it's on-topic in my own section). Y'all are too focused on POV-prone "ism" articles. The distinction between Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism is lost on me. I suppose the former is what Stalin preferred to call it, while the latter may be what others preferred to call it. Or they just represent mergers of Marxism and Leninism. Reaganism is a redirect to Political positions of Ronald Reagan; perhaps Marxism–Leninism and Stalinism could be merged to Political positions of Joseph Stalin. Bushism, Clintonism, Obamaism, Carterism, Fordism, Kennedyism, Eisehhowerism, Trumanism, you get the picture. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not all isms are "presidentisms". Not all isms are of similar categories; eg Fordism different from Bushism. And why you call them POV-prone? All politics andd its judgement is POV prone no matter how you call articles. -M.Altenmann >t 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

One more thought. Democratic state just redirects to Democracy. We do have an article titled "Communism" that this could redirect to, which would save a lot of hair-splitting and let editors move on to more productive endeavors. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, we have the article communist state exactly because it is incorrect to redirect to communism, and your remark means that either the intro to the article is bad or you diodn't read it carefully.-M.Altenmann >t 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Or make Communist state a disambiguation page:

• A state which claims to follow communism
• A dictatorship

– Wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

YOu probably don't understand what is disambiguation page in wikipedia. -M.Altenmann >t 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninism was Stalin's ideology, while Stalinism is the cult of personality around Stalin. Marxist-Leninism has become an ideology that even some people critical of Stalin have embraced. The difference between Marxism, Leninism and Bushism, Kenndeyism is that the former have become political ideologies the latter are more political positions of political figures (the former started off like this but have changed to independent ideologies in their ow right). TURTLOS (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Your first statement is incorrect. -M.Altenmann >t 16:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright then, what is so incorrect about it. TURTLOS (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

New lead

It's very obvious that the current opening is poorly organized and is repetitious, on top of many incorrect statements. Along with numerous syntax and wording errors, these points should be amended:

• The reference to the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first paragraph is poorly placed, leading an assumption the the Communist Party is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
• Communist states do not profess ideological allegiance, as the governing ideology is determined by the Communist Party.
• Marxism-Leninism does not have a specific identification of a particular form of political organization within the state as the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
• Maoism is a Marxist-Leninist ideology, as applied to specific conditions by Mao Zedong.
• No Communist state has identified itself as a "Marxist-Leninist state" but has identified as a "socialist state" or "workers' state", therefore these should be in bold in the lead paragraph.
• The Trotskyite soapbox does not belong in the opening of the article and should be moved to a "Criticisms" section or equivalent.

Along with other improvements and clarifications, here is what I came up with as a better organized and more precise opening:

The term "Communist state" is generally applied to a state with a republican form of government characterized by single-party or dominant-party rule by a Communist party which sets as its ultimate aim the the construction of communism. Technically, "communist state" is a contradictio in terminis as a communist society is in principle stateless; hence such states do not refer to themselves with this term, but rather as socialist states or workers' states. It should therefore be understood that "Communist", in this sense, refers to the Communist organization governing the state rather than the state structure itself.

In the theories of German philosopher Karl Marx, a state in any society is an instrument of oppression by one social class over another, historically a minority exploiter class ruling over a majority exploited class. Marx saw that in his contemporary time, the new nation states were characterized by increasingly intensified class contradiction between the capitalist class and the working class it ruled over. He predicted that if the class contradictions of the capitalist system continue to intensify, that the working class will ultimately become conscious of itself as an exploited collective and will overthrow the capitalists and establish collective ownership over the means of production, therein arriving at a new phase of development called Socialism. The state ruled by the working class during the transition into classless society is called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Russian theoretician Vladimir Lenin further expounded upon this concept with the understanding of the revolutionary vanguard. Lenin saw that science is something that is initially practicable by only a minority of society who happen to be in a position free from distraction so that they may contemplate it, and believed that scientific socialism was no exception. He therefore advocated that the Communist party should be structured as a vanguard of those who have achieved full class consciousness to be at the forefront of the class struggle and lead the workers to expand class consciousness and replace the capitalist class as the ruling class, therein establishing the Communist state.

In a Communist state, the Communist party is the nucleus of socialist society. Other parties may function alongside the Communist party, but parties advocating the restoration of capitalism are typically prohibited. Using Marxism-Leninism as a method of understanding the material and social conditions of society, the Communist party governs according to what the society's historical and national characteristics demand in order to unleash the productive forces and further advance towards communism. This has been done through a variety of methods in conforming to local circumstances. For example, in Russia and the Soviet Union in the 1920s, a regulated market economy was initially implemented due to the country's lack of infrastructural development and to overcome the devastation of civil war. But into the 1930s, the economy of the Soviet Union was characterized by assessment planning, heavy industrialization, and a centralized bureaucracy headquartered in Moscow. Similarly, the People's Republic of China operated almost entirely along plans of development until the 1980s when it opened its economy to foreign investment, allowing for market development alongside planned development. Reliance on markets and planning have varied in different Communist states, but most such states are characterized by state monopoly over land ownership, full union representation in the workforce, and social security systems to provide for those unable to work.

During the 20th century, the world's first constitutionally socialist state was in Russia in 1917. In 1922, it joined other former territories of the empire to become the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. After the Second World War, the Soviet Army occupied much of Eastern Europe and thus helped establish Communist states in these countries. However, because many top Communist leaders were killed under the fascist regimes in their countries, the Communists governing the states were relatively unknown to the people, in some instances resulting in public distrust and some anti-Communist demonstrations. Most Communist states in Eastern Europe were allied with the USSR, except for Yugoslavia which declared itself non-aligned. In 1949, after a war against Japanese occupation and a civil war resulting in a Communist victory, the People's Republic of China was established. Communist revolutions were also successful in Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. A Communist state was established in North Korea, although it later withdrew from the Communist movement. In 1989, the Communist states in Eastern Europe collapsed under public pressure during a wave of non-violent movements which led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Today, the existing Communist states in the world are in China, Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba.

I edited this to be the opening, but it appeared that someone had an objection so because of the issues with the current opening, if the problems with this one could be worked out and made into the opening of the article that would be better. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The proposed lead seems rather reasonable. XavierItzm (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 04:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Communist state → Marxist-Leninist state – Communist state is an incorrect term, most parties mentioned are Marxist-Leninist and most sates mentioned are also Marxist-Leninist and are thus Marxist-Leninist states. If you look up the USSR or the PRC the term Marxist-Leninist state is used not communist state to be in uniform with other Wikipedia articles this should be changed. TURTLOS (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close we just discussed this exact same move last month. #Requested move 16 February 2015; I think you should use WP:MRV to dispute the outcome -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• It's a bit late for that now. May as well use this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Tentative support, accuracy of title as per WP:AT should be a primary concern. It even struck me in my first thoughts here that, to some extent, communist state might be an oxymoron. Power, for one thing, is not distributed communally and, in reversal to this arguably "communist" principle, communist states seem to tend to become totalitarian regimes. The principles of so called communist states and those of many communes seem to me to be worlds apart on many parameters. GregKaye 10:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose move, keep as Communist State - Keep the name popularly used by English readers. Just because a Communist State is, per definition, an oxymoron, does not mean one gets to rewrite history and delete inconvenient facts. Next thing, people are going to want to eliminate the Catholic Church Wikipedia entry because that church is nor, after all, universal, hence, another oxymoron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your point is so irrelevant and ridiculous. How is changing the term Communist State to Marxist-Leninist State rewriting history? The Catholic church is called the Catholic church because it has developed a new meaning for the word Catholic (the type of christianity as opposed to the entire universe). The word communist still means the ideology described in the communist manifesto by Marx and nothing else. TURTLOS (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. Look up communism in Merriam-Webster for example: "a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production" and "a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". Thus the analogy is quite apt. The word "communism" has developed a meaning beyond the narrow view advocated for above. TDL (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The dictionary is wrong, single party state is called the vanguard party system something developed by Lenin, not Marx who created the communist manifesto, many communists such as Rosa Luxembourg, the Frankfurt school and anarcho communists are against this. Communism is a stateless society and thus cannot have state owned anything, don't take this personally but i dont think u know nearly enough about communism to edit Wikipedia. Marxian socialism and Marxist-Leninism are not the same thing one is the transitional stage from capitalism to communism Marx believed would occur the other is an ideology developed by Stalin that its proponents believe is a continuation of Marxism and Leninism. Other communists believe that the ideology is not based off Marxism and some do not even think it is based off Leninism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs)

And don't take this personally, but I don't think you know enough about the English language to edit the English wikipedia. You can't just ignore proper use of the English language simply because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or it doesn't fit your WP:POV. All of the lecturing above is quite irrelevant and misses the point entirely because as explained Communism has developed additional meaning beyond your narrow view. If you don't like Merriam-Webster, consider TFD "A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power." and "The Marxist-Leninist doctrine advocating revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat" or Dictionary.com "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." or Oxford "a political movement that believes in an economic system in which the state controls the means of producing everything on behalf of the people." or Collins: "a social order or system of government established by a ruling Communist Party, esp in the former Soviet Union".

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for you to try to purify the English language or WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS of what "real" communism is. TDL (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not the place for you to say things about communism that are untrue. I'm not sure where you found this dictionaries but theirdefinition of communism is very poor, they confuse communism with Marxist-Leninism. Don't use the word dictatorship of the proletariant if you do not know what it means (communist dictatorship is a good guess but no that is not its true meaning).What is so narrow about my view that communism and Marxist-Leninism are different to one another and that communism is a stateless system, if anything you have the narrow view you have just come on and started editing this page on communism even though you have not done nearly enough research a side from looking at a couple of dictionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs)

You are entirely missing the point. I'm not sure if this is a WP:COMPETENCE#Language difficulty issue, or you are just choosing not to WP:LISTEN. Rather than questioning my research, please read what I've actually written. I've not said a single thing about communist ideology. All I've done is explain to you how the word is used in the English language, and quote reputable sources on the matter. If you think every major English language dictionary is incorrect, then there isn't much point continuing this discussion. You're taking the position that the English language is wrong, and you're correct. The fact is, the word is used much broader than the narrow definition you are advocating for, whether you like it or not. TDL (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a native English language speaker so i dont have incompetence in English. You have used two sources that probably made honest mistakes. I know that the term is commonly used it is not the correct term and a reader looking at this would be confused at the oxymoron of the term and it gives readers the wrong impression about communism and finally one party state is an idea from Leninism not communism, one party state is a leninist idea and so saying that a communist run state is one party is pretty much saying that all communist want to establish one party states which is untrue. Wikipedia is supposed to teach people things not confuse them or misinform them. TURTLOS (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Try counting again. I've actually linked to 5 dictionaries. Arguing that every single English dictionary has made a mistake and only you know the correct way to use English is laughable. TDL (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Communist state is by far the more WP:COMMONNAME of this subject. See for example [3]. That a few wikipedians hold the view that this usage is not correct is not a good reason to ignore widespread English language usage. Proposing the same move a week after an identical RM was closed is really not productive. TDL (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that whether or not a term is correct is irrelevant and a politically incorrect but common term is important enough to make a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs)

What I'm saying is that whether wikipedia editors think it is correct or not is irrelevant. Correctness is determined by WP:RELIABLESOURCES, not wikipedians. In this case reliable sources use "communist state" as this article does. Whehter this is politically correct or not is also irrelevant. We are here to inform people, not be politically correct. TDL (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not just wikipedia users that believe this, look up communism, Marxist-leninism and similiar topics on wikipedia and you will find that most of the information agrees with me. I'm sorry but to inform people properly we have to be politically correct we are hear to inform people about topics in a correct way to say the truth we aren't supposed to just copy and paste the dictionary. TURTLOS (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already provided numerous definitions of communism which clearly show the term is used to refer to Marxist-Leninist states. I get you don't like that, but we must use the English language correctly. Your distaste for English language usage does not make it incorrect. This is not an appropriate forum for you to try to "correct" the English language. TDL (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not changing the English language it is you who is changing the English language by trying to make the terms Leninist, Marxist-Leninist and communist the same which they are not but you refuse to accept this and insist on using terms that do not make sense and in the process using the English language incorrectly. Your definitions of communism are incorrect and your strange conclusion that I dislike the English language is ludicrous and irrelevant. TURTLOS (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure you speak English natively? I most certainly never said you dislike the English language. What I said was that you had "distaste for English language usage" of communist to refer to Marxist-Leninist states. Please try to pay attention to what I actually write, as you keep responding to things I've never said.

I'm not changing the English language, and it is not my definition of communism. I'm merely quoting the definition by reputable sources and using it precisely as major English language dictionaries say that it should be used. To argue that using the term as it is defined by Oxford dictionary, for example, is incorrect is incredible silly. You are claiming that every English language dictionary has made "mistakes" and only you know how to use the English language properly, again incredible silly. You don't have the authority to force people to use the language differently, just because you don't like how the English language uses the word communism. TDL (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was discussed three weeks ago, not just one, but everything on the previous discussion still stands, and this renomination is disruptive. In any case "communist state" is the common term. "Marxist-Leninist state" is not. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The term is politically incorrect and in some ways it defames communism as an ideology to classify it as the same things as one of its variants (Marxist-Leninism) which is widely unpopular (even though communism is unpopular enough already). Wikipedia is supposed to be politically neutral, referring to Leninist states as communist states is anti-communist and unimpartial. No matter what your views on communism are you cannot just claim that stateless classless society is the same as a single party state. This is the wrong impressions many Wikipedia users will get when they read this article and is in some ways smearing the ideology. On top of all this the term is an oxymoron and in some ways laughable. TURTLOS (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems you are here to promote communism and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That is not our responsibility. Were are here merely to report facts. And the fact is that "communism" is widely used in English much more broadly than the narrow definition you are promoting. If English language usage changes and "Marxist-Leninist state" becomes the WP:COMMONNAME for this subject, then of course we should rename it. But we shouldn't preemptively rename it simply because it might upset communists. Dictators don't like being called dictators either. Perhaps we should move that to friendly overloard or something more PC so we don't hurt their feelings? TDL (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not here to encourage communism, im here to make this page neutral and to stop people from defaming communism and spreading misinformation about it. This isn't about upsetting no one i don't care if people take offense to the truth but we should not be on hear saying things that are not true and spreading misinformation to the public who come hear to find neutral and balance opinions based on fact and political correctness this is not consevapidia. The difference between dictators and communist states is that dictators exist, communist states do not. I don't care what people think or say about communism just as long it is actually communism that they are talking about and not its totalitarian mutation (Leninism). TURTLOS (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are some better definitions of communism. [4] [5] [6] [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs)

Um, did you even read the sources you linked to? The first has an entire section on Stalinism, the second says "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", the third says "As a system of government, communism is often closer to a form of socialism, in which the state owns and operates industry on behalf of the people." All of this supports the notion that communism is a broader term than the narrow definition your are pushing, and communist state is the proper terminology for the states listed on this page. That you don't like this English language usage does not make it incorrect. TDL (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the problem with the first one?? The seond one does have two definitions, the first definition is correct and thats the one u should look at the seond definition on that page is confused with Leninism. Communism is a system of government close to socialism, socialism is when the state owns production for the people i have no disagreements with that, communism is sort of like the stateless form of socialism. There is nothing narrow about my definition of communism which is what was described by Karl Marx in his manifesto, what im trying to do is show the difference between communism and Leninism which is the way that some people plan on acheiuveing communism. I'm not on hear because i don't like what the article is titled im hear to make sure that the information on hear is not misinformation, i do not think it is incorrect because of my beliefs i think it is incorrect because it is just plain incorrect. TURTLOS (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No need to repeat your sermon on communist ideology. I understand the difference, but this is irrelevant to our discussion. Perhaps if this was 1848 you would have a point, but the English language has evolved greatly since then. As your own sources show, according to every major English language dictionary the current usage is correct. I understand you "think" this usage is incorrect, but this is simply not supported by sources. Correct English is defined by using the language as specified by reputable dictionaries. To take the position that the first definition is correct and the second is mistaken is nonsensical. Your rejection of major reputable dictionaries in favour of only definitions which you approve of is not credible.

Clearly you are here to spread what you believe to be the WP:TRUE, regardless of what sources say, and are not able to understand the point I'm making, so there is no sense responding to you further. I suggest taking some time to learn how the word "communism" is used in English. TDL (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)\

Ok so some dictionaries used the term even though its correctness is disputable but for arguements sake lets say it is right, because the term is used often that means that it is the best word to use for this site, what is the harm in changing the title to Marxit-Leninist state which is a more politically correct and unambiguous term. The writing on the page is more suited to that term, e.g. if you looked at the start of the article you can see, "Communist state" is a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party system by a party which claims to follow communism" this is a characterization of a Leninist state because if non-leninists communists (e.g. Luxemburgists or Mensheviks) they would not necessarily establish one party states, not addressing this will cause people to think the all communists believe in establishing one party states and/or that a one party state is a central belief of communism and of all communists. This is the real issue not whether or not the current term is applicable to the English language. TURTLOS (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:DEADHORSE and move along, to other bright horizons of Communism :-) -M.Altenmann >t 06:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Although socialist state would be more accurate. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Socialist state already exists, i think that either this should become Marxist-Leninist state or that this page should merge with socialist state and people on wikipedia create a new page called Marxist-Leninist state, the first way is much easier. TURTLOS (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Change wording

The page's content is almost exclusively about Leninist and Marxist-Leninist states not about Communist states. While communist states (states that aim to achieve communism) are still hypothetical the content of the page should be about them and not exclusively about Marxist-Leninist states. The one party/dominant party system is a Leninist idea that is rejected by many communists so this shouldn't be written as the definition of a communist state i propose that instead the definition of communist state in this article be changed to the more unambiguous term that fits all possible communist states, something along the lines of a communist states is a state aiming to achieve socialism then communism. There should still be a mention that most communist states that have existed are and were Marxist-Leninist. Changes like these throughout the entire page should be made in order to prevent confusion about what communism is among users. TURTLOS (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There is an artificial distinction, maybe people want to say «true communism hasn't been tried yet», but the truth is, many marxist-leninist states have claimed to be communist, and many reference sources call them communist, it is not WP:NPOV to call them something else, and pretend true communism is purer. Spumuq (talq) 11:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that there is no distinction between Marx's theory of communism and Lenin's theory of a vanguard party, Marxist-Leninist states have only claimed to be socialist or state capitalist, refernces call them communist because they are a type of communist but they are not the only form of communist. It is completely neutral to call communist what they are but its not WP:NPOV to call communists, Leninists as communism is not Leninism nor is it a form of Leninism. I'm not sure what you mean when you say true communism is purer, can you please elaborate on this point. TURTLOS (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not wish to get involved in the above discussion, but I do wish to point out that information on Marxist-Leninist states should not be removed, since they are either the same thing as "Communist states" (according to one opinion), or they are a subset of "Communist states" (according to the other opinion). Either way, information about them belongs in this article. -- User1961914 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Im am baffled by the above discussion. "The page's content is almost exclusively about Leninist and Marxist-Leninist states not about Communist states" : the plain and simple fact is that all communist states are/were "Leninist" in some way or another, and that "Leninism" is the owhermingly dominant version of what is known as "communism" (and which meant, originally, "society without a state", but the meaning went through a profound evolution during the XXth century). Check any serious source on the subject, it will confirm you that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes most communist states were Marxist-Leninist but communist states are not always necessarily Marxist-Leninist, a communist state could exist that is not Marxist-Leninist. What do you mean when you say that the meaning of the word communist and communism has changed. Writing about a Marxist-Leninist state under a title of a page called communist state will make readers think that communism itself is a one party state system which it is not. TURTLOS (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"Yes most communist states were Marxist-Leninist but communist states are not always necessarily Marxist-Leninist, a communist state could exist that is not Marxist-Leninist" : yes, and pigs could fly if they had wings.

"Writing about a Marxist-Leninist state under a title of a page called communist state will make readers think that communism itself is a one party state system which it is not" : communism is not only that but, as a political regime, what has become known as "communism" is indeed a one-party state system, ruled by the local communist party. That's the reality of things, and that's what scholars aknowledge. We should just live with it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well your points about what scholars acknowledge communism to be is sort of right, but the older defintion, a stateless, classless, money less society is also another definition for the word and it is the primary definition for the word. The 'pigs could fly if they had wings' smart Alec remark wasn't needed and your own political opinions like mine are of little relevance to Wikipedia. Using communism's secondary definition (the one you described) causes ambiguity and confusion, the proper term for a state run by a vanguard party system is Leninism. When i look up communism on Wikipedia i don't find reference to a single party state system untill i reach the paragraphs about the history of communism and it is mentioned larely in the Leninism section of page. Your insistence on using communism more colloquial and unofficial definition and trying to blur the definitions of the two words while probably well intentioned is going to cause confusion and/or misinform readers TURTLOS (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Burkina Faso

Didn't Burkina Faso (formerly Upper Volta) turn Communist in 1984? Oughtn't it be included in red on the global map? --108.234.242.106 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Was Poland Communist?

Poland was differen't, the Communists failed to destroy individual farming and organised religions. The mass repressions ended in 1956.Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Xx236, didn't Poland have state-run farms? Socialistguy (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

There's some more info on Poland's status in the Polish People's Republic article. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Poland used to have a number of state-run farms before the WWII, but yes, the number of such farms was much bigger in the PRL. Almost all collective farms were dissolved around 1956.Xx236 (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't the bold term in the first sentence say Communist, not communist?

Socialistguy (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The above user posted the following text into the article. I've moved it here as it's something that should be discussed rather than displayed.

It's commonly accepted to capitalize the "C" when referring to a Communist state, or Communism in general, when mentioning the should-be transitional phase.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel, what's there to discuss? Isn't it already a consensus? Socialistguy (talk) 14:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There is indeed already a consensus. RGloucester pointed out in a recent contribution to Talk:Polish People's Republic that:

Per MOS:ISMCAPS. Communism, liberalism, socialism, conservatism, revanchism, marxism...no capitalisation for ideologies.

The WP style guide that is cited here reflects WP consensus. If you think this case is an exception, please explain your reasoning here.

Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Polly Tunnel, may I please add that it's commonly capitalized? Socialistguy (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

We need to be sure that common usage is not in error. There are, after all, many common uses of punctuation and grammar that we would not want to use in WP. Do you have any examples of sources indicating that such capitalisation is correct – a style guide for instance? Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this may be a misunderstanding. If you're talking about a proper noun like the Communist Party of China, then the "Communist" part is part of the name, in which case it's capitalised. But if you're talking about (say) communist parties in other countries, then "communist" is not part of a name, and it isn't capitalised, it's just an adjective.GliderMaven (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

List of all communist states and map

Can we have a list of the countries that where once communist and the dates of when they started and stopped being communist, like the list of the countries that once had military dictatorships. Also in the map of communist countries 1979-83, should Ethiopia and Somalia be listed? Where they not left leaning military regimes, the Derg regime wasn't considered Communist by the USSR till 1987 because Ethiopia was ruled by a Junta not a Communist party. In 1987 the Derg re branded itself as a Communist party and was then classed as Communist by the USSR. 89.242.181.110 (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Toadlash 1/7/16 8:57

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709162321/http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/learn_about_vietnam/politics/constitution/ to http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/learn_about_vietnam/politics/constitution/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

List of modern communist countries is completely misleading and ill written.

None of those countries listed are communist countries nowadays. The primary groups may be the primary group but that does not mean they are communist. So somewhere it should mention while the primary political group is communist the countries are not communist. Peachs1995 (Peachs1995 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC))

The map says it uses "present-day borders" but that isn't true

Federicoaolivieri (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

For example, it shows yugoslavia as one entity

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Communist state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709122434/http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm to http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

On picture of Communist countries past and present, one of them should not be labeled

In the picture of the Communist states, Madagascar was not a communist state, but rather it was simply a socialist state. Ameet12345 (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Per the caption on the image: "Map of countries that declared themselves or were declared to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist or Maoist definition at some point in their history." — nihlus kryik  (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

But this article is purely on Communist states, not socialist states. Madagascar had only elements of socialism.-Ameet12345 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameet12345 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Do not open this again. If you have an issue with the image, then make the request on the file talk page and not here. Also, do not remove responses that other people have given you regarding this. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Madagascar was not communist

Madagascar was not a communist state. I have a which provides all the communist states, and Madagascar is not on any of them. Madagascar should not be in red in the list of communist countries. https://www.factmonster.com/world/world-stats-facts/communist-countries-past-and-present --Ameet12345 (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

North Korea

Why is North Korea still on the list? They have removed all Marxist–Leninist references present in their constitution and dropped all reference to 'Communism' as well. They should be classified as a failed state instead. Kenwick (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I think its possible to make the case North Korea is similar to other post-communist countries like Angola, Mozambique and Cambodia. All three are still ruled by the same political party that governed them as communist regimes even though the parties don't consider themselves to be communist anymore. North Korea is obviously an outlier given that it is much more totalitarian and unreformed, but is still in some sense post-communist.--UshankaCzar (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't there be a special section of the article explaining North Korea's unique situation, just like how multi-party states ruled by communist parties have their section. Also, why don't Angola, Mozambique and Cambodia have their own special section on this article explaining their situation? (97.90.153.18 (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

Edit request

In the opener, change “Communist states can be administered by a single, centralised party apparatus, although countries such as North Korea have several parties” to “Communist states can be administered by a single, centralized party apparatus, although countries such as China have several parties”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.153.18 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

In the opener, in the fourth sentence, change "Communist states can be administered by a single, centralised party apparatus, although countries such as North Korea have several parties." to "Communist states can be administered by a single, centralized party apparatus, although countries such as China have several parties." The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Table edit

On the table where it says past communist states, Grenada should not be listed. It was about to become Marxist, but Reagan intervened in 1983 to stop that. I do not know how to edit the table, but if someone does, can someone do it please?--Ameet12345 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The Marxist New Jewel Movement was in power in Grenada for 4 years. .spintendo⋅⋅) 16:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

In the opener, "Communist states can be administered by a single, centralised party apparatus, although countries such as North Korea have several parties." to "Communist states can be administered by a single, centralized party apparatus, although countries such as China have several parties. [8] The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Although you have provided a reference which verifies what you would like to add (China as the example) you have not provided a reference which verifies what you would like to delete (North Korea as the example). Both transactions must be referenced for both to be done. .spintendo⋅⋅) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What I would like to delete (North Korea as an example) doesn’t have a source to verify it. The Professor (Time Lord) (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Improper merge

This was opened and discussed at Talk:Socialist state just days ago by this very editor. So far it's a no yet this was merged anyway??? That's vandalism! Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Should Madagascar be removed from the list of ex communist states?

According to the wikipedia page on the Democratic Republic of Madagascar, it was a one party, socialist state, with no mention of Marxist-Leninism in it's constitution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexboy9696 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

That sounds logical to me. Go ahead and do it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think not, personally. The Republic may not have mentioned Marxism-Leninism specifically but the Charter of the Malagasy Socialist Revolution, effectively its constitution, was a thinly-veiled nod to Maoism. Yet, I don't see any sources in use describing the state as explicitly Maoist or Communist, so maybe you're right. In any case, if it's removed from this page it should also be removed from Template:History of Communist Nations. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2018

I would strongly suggest removing cuba from the list of communist states, as the incoming constitution dictates a socialist, not communist, nature. 95.224.95.166 (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

CUBA should be taken off the list as its rewritten constitution excludes all mention of communism. 95.224.95.166 (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2019

Cuba is undergoing a radical constitutional reform where it no longer declares itself a communist socialist state, but rather a socialist one potentially on its way to communism. Difference wording should be considered. 95.224.95.166 (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

North Korea Marxist communistic state by definition

Please don't report I just wanted to point out that North Korea has developed its own ideology. The main Ideology today is Juche and not Marxism Juche socialism is state ideology de facto since 1998. While all mentioning of Marxism is gone in the state constitution.

"Juche was initially promoted as a "creative application" of Marxism–Leninism, but in the mid-1970s, it was described by state propaganda as "the only scientific thought... and most effective revolutionary theoretical structure that leads to the future of communist society". Juche eventually replaced Marxism–Leninism entirely by the 1980s,[126] and in 1992 references to the latter were omitted from the constitution.[127] The 2009 constitution dropped references to communism and elevated the Songun military-first policy while explicitly confirming the position of Kim Jong-il.[128] However, the constitution retains references to socialism.[129] Juche's concepts of self-reliance have evolved with time and circumstances but still provide the groundwork for the spartan austerity, sacrifice and discipline demanded by the party.[130] "

Scholar Brian Reynolds Myers views North Korea's actual ideology as a Korean ethnic nationalism similar to statism in Shōwa Japan and European fascism.[131][132][133]

So in short North Korea, today does not consider itself at all Marxist like the other states rather Korean styled socialism centred around the Kim dynasty. This article is not about socialist states. Then India and a lot of other states would be included. Therefore North Korean goals today is more about the Great leader and spreading Koreas current functioning and not world revolution and decentralisation which is the ultimate goals of Marxist. They instead following the command of the great leader. All other states mention has some Marxism-Leninism left in their constitution except North Korea. China has economic liberalization as a goal but they at least still, claim their ultimate goal is Marx definition of Communism. It's hard to classify something as Marxist communism when the North Korean constitution and leadership even don't claim it. 2009 all communistic references or goals were dropped entirely by the Workers Party in their manifesto according to the wiki page. You do not call a fish a bird or vice versa. Remove North Korea the state itself is extremely left wing but do not have communism as a goal at least the Marxist definition of it. Therefore North Korea could be removed from current communist states and placed below in former Marxist Leninist states. I recommend it because the current definition makes no sense, for example, a lot of other countries like Syria, Iraq and Egypt had/have socialist authoritarian states but we don't say Baathist Syria is a communist state. Then 2013 Kim made Clause 2 of Article 10 of the new edited Ten Principles for the Establishment of a Monolithic Ideological System states that the party and revolution must be carried "eternally" by the "Baekdu bloodline".[1]

References Wikipedia North Korean page look up the sources in the article below https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.151.141.59 (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. North Korea should and will be removed. But someone will likely revert. RojoGlobal (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed The hard part however is when they removed the complete marxistic definition. The exact may vary 2006 when all references or communist goals were removed. But in practice however there are many dates in the definition. Juche became state ideology. 1998 when all marxist definitions were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.151.141.59 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Juche is a communist ideology. All countries have given up building communism and talk about socialism. However there is ruled by a communist parties. Охранник Леса (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Juche is not a communist ideology, and NK party is not a communist party. There is no even a single mention of Marx or Marxism in its program, and the ideology is deeply nationalist. Juche is neo-Confucian ideology (strict division on social stratas with inherited membership, etc).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2019

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. (non-admin closure) Calidum 21:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

---

As it has already been stated in other dicussions, Communist state is an oxymoron; it only makes sense to speak of a communist state in the sense of state as state of being or a stage as in lower-stage and higher-stage communism rather than as an actual state such as the modern nation-state. Furthermore, the article itself notes how the term is specifically used to refer to states governed by Marxist–Leninist parties and ideology. Other states such as China are also Marxist–Leninist. Indeed, Maoism and others are all variants of Marxism–Leninism; or as they proclaim themselves to be, Marxism–Leninism adapted to their respective country. As far as I know, not only did these states never claimed to be communist as in the classless, moneyless and stateless society other than ideologically-committed Communists, they also never claimed to have been socialists, but rather being committed to build it as it also states in the lead, "with the official aim of achieving socialism and progressing toward a communist society". Now I realize many sources refers and uses Communist state, but in practice they all refer to this, a Marxist–Leninist state; Communism as state ownership of the means of production rather than as a classless, moneyless and stateless society society under common ownership; and Marxist–Leninist state has been used anyway. I also remember reading another dicussion in which it was stated that communism shouldn't be capitalized and perhaps it was done as a way to distinquish from communism itself, but then why not just use Marxist–Leninist instead? I would also argue it's not a neutral title in that it refers to a specific ideology (Marxism–Leninism) but calls it communism, which is much more than Marxism–Leninism. Either way, I believe all-non Marxist–Leninist states should be moved to the socialist state article and this page should refer only to Marxist–Leninist states. After all, a socialist state can include anything from Lassalian state socialism, to the Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat, to the social-democratic welfare state (committed to socialism), to the Marxist–Leninist state and so on; and it doesn't preclude it to be ideologically communist, it just doesn't make sense speaking of a communist state if it's not referring to as state of being or a stage rather than as a state.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Communist state is certainly not accurate. It is sometimes used to describe a socialist state governed by a Marxist–Leninist party, but it's a socialist state after all. I think we should consider merging Communist state into Socialist state. Renaming to Marxist–Leninist state would be getting deeper into the error, it's probably even less used than Communist state. --MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why I propose to merge it into the socialist state article. However, I propose re-naming the page Marxist–Leninist state and write only about this specific state (i.e. a socialist state governed by a Marxist–Leninist party), its system, how it worked, etc. because I believe it warrants a page (but I could be wrong) and since that is what sources refer to even when they speak of Communist state anyway, which as you state it's not accurate and I agree with that.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 03:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. We list titles according to their WP:COMMONNAME, so that the average reader will quickly know they have found the right article by looking at the title. The common name of this topic is the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I knew this and I have seen only now there have been previous discussion to move the page, but I hope to have a discussion about it. It's not a big deal to me and I will accept what the reliable sources say, but I hope we can have a good dicussion about it. I think the meaning of the word communism in Communist state is important, so a not to call apple oranges, even if that's the common name. I remember reading sources that also used Marxist–Leninist state and that Communist state is a synonym for that; and that it was specified Communism was used to refer to Communist Party-ruling states (which were all Marxist–Leninist or one of its variants); to state ownership of the means of production, etc. Either way, also per WP:COMMONNAME it should be capitalised since that's how the word is used in many sources; just like Italian Fascism and National Socialism are all capitalised, so Communism and Communist state were capitalised for the same reason to refer to a specific ideology, Marxism–Leninism; a state governed by a communist party that follows Marxism–Leninism, etc. What to do in cases like these where a word means literally the opposite of what some people understand? What to do when the word Communism is used to refer to a specific model, Marxism–Leninism; and when it's basically used as a synonym to refer to that? Should we call an apple apple or orange, even if the source itself aknowledge it's an apple but calls it orange anyway? If the page doesn't refer to a generic socialist state that is referred to as communist state because it claims to want to establish communism and only talks of a socialist state that is ideologically Marxist–Leninist, then I believe the title should be Marxist–Leninist state.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.Jack90s15 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose that title in particular, but I think that discussing what ought to be a proper title is warranted. The "Communist" in the title of this article kind of fits the red scare definition of communism, which was effectively any system that had workers' or peoples' interests in focus in general (i.e. any system that was not somewhere between capitalist oligarchy and representative monarchy). In that sense, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, and Juche, as well as others probably, all fit the label of "Communist state". Editors who are more well-read than me on these topics can probably pick apart my logic here, but my point is that the scope of the article is much broader than just Marxist-Leninist governments, and so the proposed title is inaccurate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and thoughts. I was just about to write a message stating that I was bit dissappointed that the argument was just "Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.", without any source. Not that I don't believe this; it's just I'm curious about exactly which sources are used to argue that, so that we can compare our sources and base our decision on them; because I would like to read them and learn more. I would have put my own sources myself, but I'm not an expert and I didn't even know about Google Schoolar until now; I also wouldn't be sure whether one source would be fine, or another, so I hope some of you could help me search and find whether there're sources that supports my reasons and arguments or not. I could be wrong, but to me it seems that I'm not necessarely wrong, that I'm not wrong in claiming these Communist states were Marxist–Leninist, but that Communist state is simply the WP:COMMONNAME; I don't dispute that. I just thought my proposed title to be a more accurate and neutral name and that this accuracy is "worth the loss in recognizability/naturalness". Because when sources describe these Communist states, they're describing Marxist–Leninist states; they just call it Communist states because ever since the Cold War Communism basically meant Bolshevism and Marxism–Leninism and not communism. Hell, there was a 1950s propaganda in the United States to describe itself as a "classless society of prospering workers versus societies of "slaves" in the Soviet Union and China". I don't think it's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH for the simple fact that sources talking about Communist states basically describe what other reliable sources describe as Marxist–Leninist ideology; they simply use the term Communism for the reasons I just stated above, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, "discussing what ought to be a proper title" was exactly my main reason to start this dicussion. I'm not even necessarily opposed to the Communist state per se, although I agree with your "red-baiting" argument; I'm opposed only insofar the page is actually talking about a specific and only state, the Marxist–Leninist state. You state that "that the scope of the article is much broader than just Marxist-Leninist governments"; however, I don't see that. Are you referring the List of former Communist states which includes mainly short-lived Communist states that weren't Marxist–Leninists? In that case, I propose to either extend the page and actually describe and talk more specifically about these states; or simply move them to the Socialist state page and rename this page Marxist–Leninist state since that's what the page actually speaks of. After all, a socialist state doesn't preclude a communist state, which is simply a socialist state committed to communism.--87.17.95.218 (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, you see, this article isn't just talking about Marxist-Leninist states. To your point about "communism" being used in the west to describe Bolshevism and Marxism-Leninism after WWII: yes, I agree, but it later came to also describe philosophies that came later, like Stalinism, Guevarism, Maoism, and Juche, which this article also covers. The PRC is Maoist, a philosophy derived from Marxism (not necessarily the Leninist variant) but adapted to Chinese agricultural society; the DPRK follows Juche, originally a Korean variant of Marxism-Leninism which became quite distinct over time. It's accurate to describe these states as communist (there are many sources, capital-C or not) but describing them as Marxist-Leninist is somewhat less accurate. That's where I'm opposing from.

As for a list of non-Marxist-Leninist states, we have that at socialist state, with the distinction made there that those states generally aren't pursuing the eventual abolition of the state in favour of communist society. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your reply and explanations, that's what I wanted. You state that "this article isn't just talking about Marxist-Leninist states", yet the lead states: Communist states are typically administered by a single, centralised party apparatus, although some provide the impression of multiple political parties but these are all solely in control by that centralised party. These parties usually are Marxist–Leninist or some variation thereof (including Maoism in China), with the official aim of achieving socialism and progressing toward a communist society.

There have been several instances of Communist states with functioning political participation processes involving several other non-party organisations, such as trade unions, factory committees and direct democratic participation. The term "Communist state" is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries. However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism—most of them refer to themselves as Socialist or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism. Then it basically describe Marxist–Leninist states. I'm not even objected to Communist state per se, if Communist state is the WP:COMMONNAME used to refer to the concept of Marxist–Leninist states. However, that's all it talks about and the List of former Communist states also include anarchist societies that would obviously reject the Communist state title and argue it's a Marxist–Leninist concept, which I believe it is. My objection is: does Communist state refer to a Marxist–Leninist concept, or simply to any nominally socialist state that is also committed to communism? If it's the latter, then the page should be significantly changed to reflect this, or it should be merged in the Socialist state since it basically describe a socialist state that is committed also to communism; or it should be changed to Marxist–Leninist state since the page already reflects this. I think the issue is that you seem to see Maoism, Juche, etc. as communist variants rather than as Marxist–Leninist variants; and I would say Juche is also disputed as one ever since it was first adopted in the 1970s, but until then it was effectively Marxist–Leninist. You state: The PRC is Maoist, a philosophy derived from Marxism (not necessarily the Leninist variant) but adapted to Chinese agricultural society. Wrong. Maoism is a philosophy derived from Marxism–Leninism, or as I have stated above, Marxism–Leninism adapated to the country's culture and materical conditions; but it fundamentally is a Marxist–Leninist ideology. The thing is that historical context is important and ever since the October Revolution and the Cold War the words Communism or even just Marxism were used to refer to Marxism–Leninism and its various variants. The Marxism people like Pol Pot and many others studied in Paris and pretty much elsewhere was Marxism–Leninism, especially Stalinism; and many common Marxism criticisms are actually referring to Marxism–Leninism rather than classical Marxism; and that is caused by the fact that Stalinism became both the Communist and Marxist orthodoxy. Indeed, the word Stalinism itself was mainly used by communists and Marxists critical of it and became more common after Stalin's death with the "Secret Speech". Just because the ideology is called Maoism, Juche, or whatever, it doesn't mean it's not a variant of Marxism–Leninism and that the state didn't remain fundamentally Marxist–Leninist.

All these so-called Communist states were fundamentally Marxist–Leninists. As I have stated elsewhere: Marxism–Leninism is neither Marxism nor Leninism; it's basically like National Socialism which is far-right, German fascism and not socialism in any way; I mean in the sense of the ideology being missnamed since it isn't actually what it claims or name itself to be. Marxism–Leninism was developed and codified by Stalin and as a result it's basically Stalinism (theory); and what is referred as Stalinism is nothing but Marxism–Leninism in practice or simply Stalin's policies (practice). Thus, all so-called Communist regimes were Marxist–Leninist but not all were necessarily Stalinist; see Yugoslavia, which mainted many Marxist–Leninist precepts (one-party state, socialism in one country, etc.) but didn't have exactly the same economic policies of orthodox Marxism–Leninism (this was justified in that Titoism, just like Maoism and all other -isms are simply Marxism–Leninism adapted to their respectve countries cultures and material conditions). North Korea officially stopped being Marxism–Leninism (then again, it could be argued that it never stopped, that Juche and Songun are simply policies that were adopted due to changing material conditions; Marxism–Leninism could basically be used to justified anything and any policy, really) in the 1990s, although it could be argued it stopped in the 1970s with the first adoption of Juche and that Juche itself isn't overwhelming considered communist. Either way, I reiterate that the page the word communist in the title should be changed to Marxist–Leninist because when sources describe these Communist regimes, they're describing Marxist–Leninist regimes; they just call it Communism because ever since the Cold War Communism basically meant Bolshevism and Marxism–Leninism and not communism. Hell, there was a 1950s propaganda in the United States to describe itself as a "classless society of prospering workers versus societies of "slaves" in the Soviet Union and China". Finally, I believe this to be a more accurate and neutral name and that this accuracy is "worth the loss in recognizability/naturalness".

Now, if sources disagree with me, that's fine and I'm ready to accept it and have no problem with it. However, I would like to see these sources rather than have me stated something as fact; even if it's a fact, that doesn't mean sources shouldn't be provided for; and if I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard to do so. I'm here to learn too.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; communist state is the term overwhelmingly used by English-language reliable sources, both scholarly and media sources. --Tataral (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
• I think the article should be renamed to Self-declared socialist states. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I'm disappointed that no one, beside a precious few who also seemed dissatisfied with the current name but may disagree with my proposal, actually replied to my objections and no one actually provided a single source; even if it's a fact, that doesn't mean sources shouldn't be provided for. If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be hard to prove so. I don't even dispute that Communism is the WP:COMMONNAME, although I repeat once again that I have seen sources capitalise the word Communism exactly to distinquish between communism and Marxism–Leninism. I'm just saying that I believe accuracy and WP:NPOV triumph in this specific case and that this is justified in being an exception. If you disagree with this, fine; but at least reply to my objections, which some did but stopped now; and do it with sources, which no one did as of now. I have no problem accepting whatever decision will be final, but I would have liked to have a more thorough discussion and sharing of sources.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose this particular rename. This has been proposed multiple times in this talk page (2012, 2015), as well as in other related articles. There's no point in repeating the same arguments all over again without bringing a strong source analysis to the table. The current consensus is not renaming Communist state to Marxist-Leninist state. That was also reflected in Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes and Talk:Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes. --MarioGom (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As I have explained, I didn't check all previous dicussions. Well, I invited all of you to show me sources, but no one actually did; even if something is considered a fact, that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a source to be provided of. I also stated that I'm not an expert and that if I knew how to do it, I would do exactly like I was editing a page and put a reference after every sentence of my argument. So could someone help me check what do reliable sources say? I want to avoid any cherry picking and confirmation bias, that's why I want you to do that for me; beside, I'm not an expert and I wouldn't even know how to start my reasearch and what to search for. Perhaps it was better to just raise a discussion about it rather than a move one. Thank you all.--79.19.28.124 (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Scope of the article

What exactly does Communist state refer to? Is it an acedemic concept used to refer to states which were allied or associated with the Communist/Soviet bloc? Does it refer to a Marxist–Leninist concept, namely a socialist state that is committed to communism? @MarioGom: I have seen you have removed many communes and I agree with that, but then again why is this page still called Communist state when it's basically talking about Marxist–Leninist states? I would also remove pre-1924 states and move them to the Socialist state page, but keep the others and move this page to Marxist–Leninist state to describe a specific version of a socialist state governed by a Marxist–Leninist party because I believe it warrants it to have a specific page due its differances with all other socialist state models and because it's the best prominent example of it. You were also one of the few who actually agree that Communist state wasn't accurate, but proposed to merge it with Socialist state. However, if as you stated, "It is sometimes used to describe a socialist state governed by a Marxist–Leninist party", then why not just call it Marxist–Leninist states, especially when sources refer to that even if the use the Communist name instead? Then again, I could be wrong, but the move discussion didn't say I was wrong in seeing capitalised communism as synonymous with Marxism–Leninism, just that Communist state is the common name. Do you believe accuracy triumph common name in this case (sources are referring to the same concept, they just use different names; they don't even agree whether to capitalise the word communism or not, but they generally agree they're referring to states governed by a Marxist–Leninist party). All these states were Marxist–Leninists; they all agree with the one-communist party state rule, socialism in one country, etc. See Cook, Chris (1998). Dictionary of Historical Terms (2nd ed.). pp. 221–222, 305. Ideologies like Maoism, Titoism, Ho Chi Minh Thought, etc. are simply Marxism–Leninism adapted to their respective countries' material conditions, that's why it isn't called Marxism–Leninism–Titoism, etc. On the other hand, Marxism–Leninism–Maoism is considered by its proponents to be higher than Marxism–Leninism and universally applicable. Either way, what could be done to improve the page?--79.52.17.197 (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

As discussed previously, its scope seem to be socialist states with Marxist-Leninist (or variations, it's a bit fuzzy here) parties in government. I think it should be merged to Socialist state. By the way, that's the path followed by Spanish Wikipedia, where a translation of this article from English was rejected as low quality fork of Socialist state and it's now a redirect. I was planning to nominate it for merge after checking content here that should be present after the merge. --MarioGom (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: thanks for your reply. At this point, I guess I would support a merge. Anyway, I have several proposals. Let me know what you and others may think:

1. Keep it as it is.

2. Merge Communist state with Socialist state.

3. Merge Communist state with Socialist state and make Communist state a redirect to Socialist state, Socialist state#Communist state, Socialist state#Marxist–Leninist state, or whatever the merged section will be called.

4. Rename this page Marxist–Leninist state, but make it larger (example; I don't know if it's correct, but it should describe what it is, how it works/ed, its political, economic, juridcal, military and party system, etc.) and merge some of it with Socialist state.

5. Merge Communist state with Socialist state, create a Marxist–Leninist state page from the scratch and make it so that it describes what it is, how it works/ed, its political, economic, juridcal, military and party system, etc.

I personally believe Communist state should be merged or moved to Socialist state, but I also believe a Marxist–Leninist state article that talks only about a Marxist–Leninist state as a specific form of socialist state could be warranted (like the Communist state page is now after your last edits, but made larger as stated above), if it can be made large enough so that the section merged in the Socialist state page summarises it.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Discussion listed at WikiProject Politics and WikiProject Socialism. --MarioGom (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• @MarioGom: Thank you so much for doing this and I apologise for being annoying or disruptive. I will accept whatever will be decided, but I would like to have a through discussion including the whole Project, or at least as much users as possible to reach a consensus. Anyway, do you still support merging the page? What do you think about my five proposals and which one would you support personally? 2 and 3?--82.53.106.200 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

• Note that the user who opened this discussion is now blocked. --MarioGom (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2019

This entire article, especially the "criticism" section, needs to be entirely rewritten by a none-Marxist or Marxist sympathizer. The section is at least 2/3 favorable towards the ideology of Communism, which is a disgrace to Wikipedia. This article looks as if it was written by Naxalite or Anarcho-communist. At the very least another paragraph needs to be added or removed from this section to reduce the bias. I assume that the article was "protected" due to users protesting the massive bias present. I assume that a Communist is reading this request, because they have infested Wikipedia from their college campus dorms, so it will be declined. Comrade Casio (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2019 (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. aboideau^talk 14:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the term "Communist state" an oxymoron?

According to Marxist-Leninist theory, the terms "Communism" and "state" are mutually exclusive. No state can exist in a communist society. I made a brief search for a source that can support the opening statement of the lead, and I was unable to find anything. I put a "citation needed" template, and, I would appreciate if someone replaced it with a reference to a good source. Otherwise, we will have to remove this statement as a piece of original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Marx believed that first stage of communist society, at least, should have state. Nevertheless, neither one state called itself "communist state" and neither one of them satisfied Marx's definition of communism, so whole article should be deleted or merged in something else. 78.1.182.166 (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I must agree with that. The term "communist state" is never used in formal or informal meaning by real or self-professed communists. It is used by non-communists and anti-communists, and it should be at least clearly emphasized from beginning. It would be even better to delete whole article. 93.138.153.40 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of an oxymoron in the pure sense. However, the scope of the article is states which define themselves or have been defined by others as communist (or Marxist-Leninist/Maoist more accurately), which is a real thing that happens. We also have communism for the ideology, and communist society for the end goal of traditional Marxism. There's no reason to delete the article: we write things as they are, not how they ought to be, and clearly there are and have been communist states in this sense. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I am not aware of any state that ever defined itself as communist. The USSR defined itself as a socialist state whose goal was to build a communist society. North Korea rejects any connection with Marxism and Communism, and, according to modern views is mainly a neo-Confucian society, and so on. As far as I know "Communist state" is a colloquial umbrella term used by non-communists or anti-communists to describe the states ruled by a single Communist or pro-Communist party (or even any non-fascist totalitarian state). This fact should be explained. At least, I found no sources that can support the first paragraph of the lead. That means it is a piece of an original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I noticed the citation needed tag that I placed last year was removed along with the last few words of the unsourced paragraph. However, the tag referred to the paragraph as whole. Since noone was able to add a reference, I take a liberty to remove the paragtraph as whole.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• By definition of communism, there is never a communist state in the world but plenty of socialist/communist-ruling/Markist-Leninism states, and it should merge and redirect to Socialist states. OuiOK (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

This is a bad website.

HI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.228.85.253 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a good website IF your IQ is higher than 70. if your IQ is below than 70, Wikipedia isn't for you84.54.78.64 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where's Venezuela?

Isn't Venezuela a communist state? Shouldn't it be listed here? I know it has a Soviet-style planned economy but I admit I don't know much about it and maybe it's just socialist like Belarus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.208.120 (talk) 04:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Our article Government of Venezuela suggests otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020

In the State section:

1. Change “were” to “where”

2. Add an “in” before “China” in “currently in use China”. Indrajit01 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out. - hako9 (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

Fix the name, "Granada", to, "Grenada" Ismellprofit (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Where do you see the wrong spelling? I can't find it anywhere. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Kirghiz ASSR (1920-25).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

I want to add North Korea to the list of remaining communist countries today TheFedsAreHere (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The article North Korea describes it as a Unitary one-party republic under a totalitarian dictatorship. It is well sourced. No mention of communism there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but it says here in this wikipedia article Communism in Korea that North Korea is a Juche socialist state under the rule of the Workers' Party of Korea and Juche means It postulates that "man is the master of his destiny", that the Korean masses are to act as the "masters of the revolution and construction" and that by becoming self-reliant and strong, a nation can achieve true socialism. [9] contribs) 00:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither Juche nor socialism are the same thing as communism. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Time to move China to "Previous communist states"?

I think many people who have really looked into it agree that China is NOT a communist country anymore. She was during ~1950s to 1970s. In the early 1980s, Deng Xiaoping began the Chinese economic reform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform), gradually changed China from a communist country to the current socialist country with Chinese characteristics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_with_Chinese_characteristics). Some people even started to classify her system as "state capitalism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism). Communist China is a thing of the past. You can hardly find any characteristics of communism in China now. Except for the word "communist" in the Chinese Communist Party but why they do not change the name is another story. WakemanCK (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

POV edits by BunnyyHop

BunnyyHope has made two changes adding and removing content to push their POV into the article. See [10], [11]. I have reverted these edits because there is no consensus for a change per BRD.  // Timothy :: talk  01:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the article under WP:1RR? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oh yes, including Non-Aligned Movement and the Third World is POV, straight from Soviet history textbooks. A lot of them did not follow communist ideology. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
• The idea that the nation in the center of the Cuban missile crisis was "non-aligned" is laughable. Yugoslavia had a more varied relationship with the Soviet Union and the communist bloc, often based on the need for western aid, but they were clearly aligned with the communist bloc through most of their history. (Judt, T. (2005). Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945.) Trying to claim otherwise is a POV that ignore actual facts and history.  // Timothy :: talk  04:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUM, with complete disregard to WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:TERTIARY sources. See the latter guideline. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong again, Wikpedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources, per WP:RS "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.".  // Timothy :: talk  05:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:TERTIARY

Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other

WP:SECONDARY

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources

Does this say tertiary sources should not be used?

--BunnyyHop (^talk) 05:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's a fact that there were "communist states" in the Non-Aligned Movement, and not just Yugoslavia and Cuba, which both played leading roles in the Non-Aligned Movement. These states were not part of the Warsaw Pact, which was a formal alliance for which "Eastern Bloc" is often used as synonym. A tertiary source is fine; there is no shortage of secondary sources either. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• I came here from the ANI thread after reading some of the content there and don't want to get drawn into an argument, but want to make sure we're containing correct information. Havana hosted the sixth conference of non-aligned states in 1979. Yugoslavia was clearly non-aligned as well and was probably the most important non-aligned country, including their relationship with India. Lots of scholarship on this, should be easy to find references. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Chapter "Analysis" is not well balanced

In my opinion the Chapter "Analysis" is not well balanced/does not provide a neutral point of view.

The last two paragraphs read like an apologetic for Communist states, it quotes politicians of these states without quoting an opposing point of view. Note that Heinz Kessler who is quoted here was tried in a German court for incitement to commit intentional homicide, for his role in the deaths of people who tried to flee the GDR between 1971 and 1989. He appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that his actions were in accordance with GDR law. But his appeal was denied largely on the basis that the GDR's policies violated international human rights. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauerschützenprozesse (de) So yeah, these people might now be free of work, but they are now also free of Heinz Kessler. Maybe add this for context?

The first paragraph reads as if the criticism was levied on a purely ideological basis, e.g. quote "Communist states have also been criticised for the influence and outreach of their respective ruling parties on society, in addition to lack of recognition for some Western legal rights and liberties such as the right to own property and the restriction of the right to free speech." No mention of the various human rights violations perpetrated by communist states (remember that human rights are universal and not dependent on whether you have a western viewpoint or not; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights). "... the influence and outreach of their respective ruling parties on society ..." is a mild understatement of the near total control these parties had/have over every aspect of the life of their citizens, e.g. whether one can study at university or not depends on the political stance of the citizen.

Some points that are not mentioned at all in the first paragraph regarding criticisms of communist states:

• mass murders/genocides perpetrated under communist leadership; maybe link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes directly in the "see also"?
• supply shortages, famines caused or exacerbated by the planned economy; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
• persecution/execution of citizens with a differing political view, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internment_camps
• No mention of the popular uprisings that ended communism in the eastern block and why the citizens of these states felt the need to take to the streets.
• No mention that communist states are also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration_from_the_Eastern_Bloc, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_at_the_Berlin_Wall

Regarding the detoriation after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, maybe add some data of the development in the last 30 years, e.g. how does the current quality of life in the former eastern block compare to the quality of life under communist rule?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.175.84.96 (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Article title is misleading

Wouldn't it make more sense to have this page be named socialist state? I am aware that it clarifies that by communist states the article is referring to "states governed by communist parties" but it is oxymoronic and would be more factually and terminologically correct if it was renamed to socialist state. Marxist-Leninist state would work better as well since this focuses on and is a part of the series on Marxist-Leninism. Digiulio8 (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No the article title is not misleading, everything is clarified in the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

Why not write Marxist-Leninist state then? There have been socialist societies that have been run by communist parties but don't fall into the definitions in the article (namely following Marxist-Leninist tendencies.) And like I mentioned before "communist state" is completely oxymoronic. Maybe misleading wasn't the right word rather just terminologically incorrect and doesn't focus on the ideology of Marxist-Leninism which is what the article is supposed to be about. Not to mention "communist government" is also mentioned several times throughout the article which falls into the same issue as the title.Digiulio8 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Because most commonly they are referred like that, nothing "oxymoronic" here.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC))

Alright then. Isn't really factually correct by any means though but oh well. I guess if that doesn't matter then it doesn't need to change lol. Digiulio8 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

None of these states did call themselves "communist states", Wikipedia refers to almost all of them as "socialist republics" in their own respective articles. Communism is a stateless society, so the term "communist state" is an oxymoron and complete nonsense. we can call them stalinist states, "states ruled by people that called themselves communists", state-capitalist or state-socialist. Most oft them have or had mixed capitalist and socialist economies. Absolute no one serious would claim that any of them achieved communism, its a constant debate if there even achieved actual socialism.Carnifexx (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

They refer to their official state form, but it does not mean they weren't communist states.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC))

This site has western biases

It's unbelievable this isn't a Good Article but the Liberal Democracy one is... Westerners should check their privileges and stop judging other cultures, even Communist dictatorships. You should recall the USSR won the Second World War by fighting alone, the "allies" wouldn't have won the war without the USSR. Oh man, may the United States one day be COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY ANNIHILATED FOR ALL ITS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY! AMERICA DELENDA EST! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.219.182.200 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2021

Add Canada to the list of communist countries. 2607:FEA8:7B9F:A000:90BF:1CB6:6FF8:C13F (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

Thailand, India, Israel and Malaysia were former communist countries. Ckr dolt (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide WP:RS that indicate these countries had a communist government (not just communist parties). ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 04:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

Possible vandalism by User:Ckr dolt with inclusion of states that sound fictitious. The added states are Siamese Socialist Workers' Monarchy (1918–1939), Thailand Thai Socialist Workers' Monarchy (1939–1957), Thai Soviet Monarchy (1957–1959), Bolivian Soviet Socialist Republic (1919–1947), Filipino Soviet Socialist Republic (1970–1976), Jamaican Soviet Socialist Republic (1936–1964), and Putrajaya Soviet (1944–1949). In my years I have seen no source that says that they are real. Bvcitizen (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Bvcitizen I agree - unexplained removal of content and very dubious additions with no sources or explanation - so I have reverted as vandalism. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, have a good day. Bvcitizen (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Crimean ASSR (1938).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Multi-party states with governing communist parties

Nepal Communist Party has already been split to predecessor communist parties while the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) is no more ruling party of Nepal. The new ruling party is Nepali Congress, a third-way social democratic party after decision of Supreme court and Sher Bahadur Deuba next PM with Fifth Deuba Cabinet, 2021. Please edit the section for latest information.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please verify:https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/nepal-sc-orders-to-appoint-sher-bahadur-deuba-as-pm-within-next-28-hours-101626077841170-amp.html110.44.124.130 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Already done The article does not say the Communist part is the ruling party in Nepal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit request!

The section in article: Multi-party states with governing communist parties says;"Nepal is currently led by the Nepal Communist Party". The new Prime minister of Nepal is Sher Bahadur Deuba from Third-way Social democratic party. So, Nepal is currently led by Nepali Congress. This information is outdated. Please change to "Nepal iwas led by the Nepal Communist Party from 2017 to 2021". For reference:-. A news item involving Sher Bahadur Deuba was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 July 2021. See this too and do make changes as it is a crucial one.110.44.124.164 (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

References

North Korea and Venezuela

The list of communists States should include North Korea due to it's leaded by The Workers' Party of Korea. In addition, Venezuela is ruled by The United Socialist Party of Venezuela. 139.47.93.203 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The United Socialist Party of Venezuela is socialist, not communist. Its main ideology is Chavismo, a variation of democratic socialism. The de facto ideology of North Korea is not communism, it is Juche. Juche is an ultranationalist ideology, with elements directly copied from State Shinto. Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Final Paragraph of the Overview

In the final paragraph of the overview, countries which have democratically elected communist parties are listed. While the examples of Cyprus and Nepal are valid, the other examples are questionable.

• In San Marino, the Sammarinese Communist Party was in an alliance with the more moderate Sammarinese Socialist Party.
• In Nicaragua, most major right leaning parties abstained from the election.
• In Guyana and Moldova, the PPP and PCRM respectively are only considered to be nominally communist.

The argument can be made that for San Marino and Nicaragua but the inclusion of Guyana and Moldova is a stretch. --Kappasi (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Turkestan ASSR (1919-1921).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Should this page be renamed to a "Marxist-Leninist" state?

A communist state is not necessarily equivalent to a Marxist-Leninist state, as a Marxist-Leninist state is one that follows the path of Marxism and Leninism as synthesized by Joseph Stalin. However, a communist state does not necessarily have to be a Marxist-Leninist one. Just my thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawlucas (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Mountain ASSR (1921-1924).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

North korea situation

We have on numerous pages a note explaining the North korea's unique situation, we should add one here for North korea here.

2603:7000:3B40:B500:991C:6BD6:EA74:A25 (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

References

far left

Why doesn't it mention that Communism is far left? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90C8:503:BE18:7C94:5556:EC0E:6310 (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Because there are no sources which define it in this way. Dimadick (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it’s stating the obvious and irrelevant to the subject? Dronebogus (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"Communist state" to "Socialist state?"

Communism is, itself, the end goal of socialist society; an end to the state. The term "communist state" is an oxymoron, as a communist society cannot have by definition a state. 2601:5CB:4001:1A30:8D41:6FCE:FF31:BEF2 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Source? Dronebogus (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

'"The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—this is, at the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not 'abolished.' It dies out."

- Friedrich Engels, "Socialism: Utopian vs. Scientific," 1901

___

"The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax."'

- Fredrich Engels, "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State," 1884

___

"For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary."

"[...]in this sense the state begins to wither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority.. the majority can directly fulfill all these functions, and the more the functions of state power devolve upon the people generally, the less need is there for the existence of this power."'

- Vladimir Lenin, "The State and Revolution," 1917 2601:5CB:4001:1A30:8D41:6FCE:FF31:BEF2 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. As it says in the article, none of the states listed call themselves communist states.Grassynoel (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Missing a space/tabulation in section "Former communist states"

• What I think should be changed: Bellow point 'Latvia' is 'Executive Committee of the Soviet of Workers, Soldiers, and the Landless in Latvia (1917 - 1978)' without any space and tabulation before it.
• Why it should be changed: I believe it's a typo, which may cause some misunderstanding.

Bogri2 (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

References

 Done -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)