Talk:Socialist state/Archive 7

Sweden

Socialist state should be a term used solely for those countries that enforce "marxism" or "scientific socialism" otherwise you could end up with a nonsense like "Sweeden is socialist state" which is obviously NOT true.190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, except that one must deal with the fact that there is considerable confusion, in general and particularly in the USA, and particularly amoungst young people, about this question.

For instance a quick look through google immediately throws up a question posted "I know swedn is socialist, but what other cxountries in Europe are socialist". Any viewer of Fox News will soon draw the conclusion that Socialism lurks in various unspecified states in Europe.

But this means we need to carefully disentangle these questions, separating out the various strands of meaning surrounding the words socialism and state.

I think this article goes a long way to doing this, and have tentatively made a few additions

Andysoh (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Early modern vision of a socialist state and add sections proposals

I think the article would not suffer from removing the asterisks and making each asterisked paragraph a section with a suitable header.

Any objections?

Implemented this rather non-controversial task and attempted to summarise the sections in two short paras.Andysoh (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Also:

Could we add something roughly along the following lines under the first para in the Marxism section?

Header: Early Marxist conception of a socialist state==

One of the most influential modern visions of a socialist state was based on the Paris Commune, in which the workers and poor took control of the city of Paris in 1871. Karl Marx described the Paris Commune as the prototype for a revolutionary government of the future, "the form at last discovered" for the emancipation of the proletariat.

Friedrich Engels noted that "all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers... In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up".

Commenting on the nature of the state, Engels continued: "From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine".

In order not to be overthrown once having conquered power, Engels argues, the working class "must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment."

Such a state would be a temporary affair, Engels argued. A new generation, he suggested, brought up in "new and free social conditions", will be able to "throw the entire lumber of the state on the scrap-heap."

These ideas were adopted by Vladimir Lenin in 1917 just prior to the October Revolution in Russia and published in The State and revolution, a central text for many marxists. The trade embargo and invasions against the new workers' state, together with civil war saw the destruction of these goals. Andysoh (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Related AfD at List of socialist countries

List of socialist countries has been put up for deletion here. You may not be aware that this list exists. Various proposals are being debated including; keep, delete (and merge any useful information into the relevane articles), and rename. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

State not required?

What historians/philosophers purported that "a state is not needed to establish a socialist system"? TYelliot (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

From the top of my head, Malatesta and Kropotkin. Silly. 94.170.94.249 (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC) EDIT: -Hyperlinked- 94.170.94.249 (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Norway and Sweden

Why aren't Norway and Sweden listed in this article? There share much in common with Communism, such as far-left anti-Semitism. Also, Nazi Germany was a socialist state because Nazism is a type of socialism that is very similar to Communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.46.143 (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong about Norway and Sweden (which are among the best countries in the world for protection of human rights) and about the Nazis (who were "socialist" in the same way that the Holy Roman Empire was "Roman" - which is to say, not at all). But that's not really the point here. The point is that there is no single, generally-accepted definition of what "socialism" means. Instead, there are many different ones. Some say that socialism requires state control over the economy, some say it doesn't. Some say socialism requires democracy, some say it doesn't. Most socialists say that socialism is based on the ideal of human equality, and therefore it is incompatible with racism or anti-Semitism. Others, generally conservative commentators, call anyone who advocates large government a "socialist". But Wikipedia tries to be neutral. How can we come up with a neutral list of socialist countries when people don't agree on what "socialism" means? One way to do it is to simply include every country that claimed to be socialist, and exclude every country that didn't. That way we don't have to judge who was right and who was wrong. The result is a little ridiculous, I know, but can you think of any other way to be neutral? KS79 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Useless map

Considering how inclusively "socialism" is defined for the purposes of this article, and the "at any point in their history part", does the map at the top of the article present any sort of useful information at all? It's certainly not "How socialist is the world?" seeing as it includes even countries where nominal socialist rule was very short-lived. It also includes China which has been communist-in-name-only, but not the US which probably provides more extensive welfare. In short, the map implies there's a binary "socialist or not" switch when that's obviously not the case, and is further muddled by not presenting a snapshot in time when dealing with a subject as fluid as social policy. 85.216.200.127 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the map is useless, for all the reasons you listed. But what can we do about it? Different people mean different things by the word "socialism", and Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. We can't say, "here is the correct definition of socialism, and here is a map of countries that fit this definition". Maybe we should not have any map at all... KS79 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

{http://www.worldbookonline.com/student/article?id=ar126880&st=communism} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.128.117 (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The rough consensus of the discussion is to Keep both articles. Logical1004 (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Communist state should be merged into this article

The article communist state should be merged into this article. 1, no communist state has ever existed (for the concept of communism as a stage/system see pure communism, 2 communist state is a generalized term to help people better understand the communist nature of the socialist state which is presumably ruled by a communist party of sorts and 3 socialist states is both used by non-communist and communists alike so is generally the most neutral term.

• Support merger --TIAYN (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. While everything you said is true, the fact is that there is a difference between the general concept of a socialist state and the specific use of that concept by Marxist-Leninists. It is this latter topic - the specific socialist states established by Marxist-Leninist parties - that is the subject of the communist state article. So, in other words, the two articles should not be merged for the same reason why liberal democracy should not be merged into democracy. A liberal democracy is a specific application of the broad concept of democracy. A "communist state" is the specific Marxist-Leninist application of the broad concept of a socialist state. -- User1961914 (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per the IP above who made a quite compelling case. I think communist states are notable enough to merit their own article, with a section here in summary. TDL (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I would support a proposal to rename communist state to something more accurate, though. "Marxist-Leninist state" or "Socialist state (Marxism-Leninism)" might be good options, for example. But that's a different discussion. -- User1961914 (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@User1961914 and Danlaycock: I don't get you're point, they are the same things, and therefore logically speaking, they can be covered in the same article. There is a difference between liberal democracy and democracy, since there exists other forms of democracy as well, such as socialist democracy, Roman democracy, Athenian democracy, People's democracy (Marxism–Leninism), demarchy, Consociational democracy and so on, therefore logically speaking liberal democracy cannot be merged into the democracy article. Communist state and socialist state are the same thing, there has never been a socialist state in practice which has not been communist (at least in modern history). And considering the length of this article, and the other, they can me merged without controversy without removing information. To add, this article is more about marxist-leninist states then any other socialist state. At last, at most, this article debates what a socialist state is (which reformist, revolutionary and other interpreration of what that means) which means that the communist state article, without controversy, could be merged into this one. Its the same information in both. --TIAYN (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose 伊欧玟 (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support merger "Communist state" is essentially a Western term for "Socialist state". The vast majority of socialist states are Marxist-Leninist or Maoist, and the concept appears to be specific to those political ideologies (barring modern usage by American conservatives who label welfare states as "socialist states"). Therefore I think the content of this article can be merged into a subsection of the Socialist state article. --Battlecry 03:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia is based on reliable sources; we follow what the sources tell us. And the majority of the sources would treat "communist state" separately from "socialist state". STSC (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @STSC: Give me one example of a reliable source differing between the concept "communist state" and "socialist state"? --TIAYN (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the general impression I had when searching "communist state" on search engines but the burden of proof is on the proposer, i.e., to provide RS to back his/her case. STSC (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see my comment below. Aravind V R (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that the burden of proof rests with the person making a claim, in this case that "the majority of the sources would treat communist state separately from socialist state." I'm afraid that the "general impression" you had doesn't cut it here. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the same burden of proof applies to your claims below, namely that "Communist state is a misnomer for socialist state".

Here is a book which explains the difference between communist and socialist states: Ram Madan, Gurmukh. "Sociology of Development". there is a difference between a "socialist state" and a "communist state". In a communist state there is socialization of property, the form of government is non-democratic in the sense that there is one-party rule and there are many restrictions on the liberty of the people. On the other hand, a socialist state may have a democratic form of government and there may be socialization of certain industries and not all, because socialism may mean merely the ideals of social justice, greater equality and security. TDL (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Understand the fundamental differences between both [1]. That 'Communist state' is just a western term for socialist state is definitely false. But that is how the term defined in the introduction. But then, that definition is from an erroneous edit from user Zozs, just three months ago. Correcting/reverting that edit, I think, should close this discussion. Aravind V R (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The source you have provided is unreliable. Can you please provide another one. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support merger - The idea of a communist state is a complete oxymoron and is just inaccurate. It is true that not all socialist state are misidentified communist states but it would make sense to but the information on this article as part of the Socialist state Wikipedia page or change the title of this page to Socialist State (Marxism), not Socialist State (Marxist-Leninism) only because Marxist-Leninists are not the only Communist group that believe in creating a Socialist tranistionary state that leads to Communism as described by Marx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I would agree with others here that there are notable differences between socialism and communism.(1) Therefore we should not merge. - Gaming4JC (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The source you have provided refers to socialism and communism, not to socialist and communist states. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Communism is a stateless way of organizing society similar to anarchism. When communist take power and when they have taken power they establish a state capitalist/ socialist state. Communist states have not ever existed, do not currently exist and will never exist. The differnce between socialism and communism as a political ideology is dependent on the form of socialism in question as socialism has many variants and communism is a type of socialism. The socialism mentioned in the article is reformist socialism, the article is also semi-incorrect about communists view of capitalism, like most socialist, communists view capitalism as a vital part of the transition to the ideal society, they also believe that socialism can arise from a capitalist society, the difference is communists believe that after this communism will develop from a socialist society. This is expressed in Karl Marx's theory of Historical materialism. Avoidable unnecessary arguments are also arising about the content in the Communist State Wikipedia page, i advise that this communist stae be merged into this page as soon as possible. Non-anarchist socialists and non-anarchist communists both establish socialist states. TURTLOS (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Communist state" is terminology according to RS. For example, Google books search gives 173,000 hits: [2]. "Socialist state" is how some of the communist governments called themselves. But the difference is deeper. As some other participants noted, there are notable differences between "socialism" and "communism". For example, many sources [3] claim certain countries (like Finland) to be "socialist" states (as welfare states), but they are obviously not "communist" states. So, it would be best to keep the apples and oranges separately. My very best wishes (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Finland is a welfare state but so are most developed nations including the USA (not as much as Finland but it still is), calling them socialist would pretty much be calling everyone that is not a fully fledged capitalist a socialist. Socialism is different to Communism the latter is the purest type of the former. That doesn't mean that communist states are different to socialist states, that isn't really true, most if not all "communist states"

are Marxist-Leninist states, these are a type of socialist state but not communist states because as i have said time and time again the concept of communism is contrary to the concept of a state. TURTLOS (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support. Communist state is a misnomer for socialist state (e.g. USSR), usually governed by a communist party (e.g. CPSU). Communism (to each according to his need) is the goal of actually existing socialist (to each according to his work) states, but has never been achieved. Anyone trying to "claim certain countries (like Finland) to be socialist states" really should not be expressing an opinion here. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Any reliable sources to support your opinion that "Communist state is a misnomer for socialist state"? TDL (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - I think I've commented on this elsewhere. There's a significant ideological divide between what could be defined as a socialist state, and certain nominally communist states which have existed in recent history that may use "socialist" in their names but in reality function as something closer to a totalitarian oligarchy, and it is that form of government which our communist state article is about. Ivanvector (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide an example of a state that you would describe as socialist? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I couldn't; a socialist state is an ideal which to my knowledge no state has actually achieved. I can point to several that either self-identify or are identified by other states as communist, but none actually achieved communism nor socialism, and some really weren't even working towards those ideals. Of course there are socialist elements within many states, not just those identified as communist. Ivanvector (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, can you please elaborate on the defining characteristics of a state that you would describe as socialist (as opposed to communist)? Also, can you please provide an example of a state that has self-identified as communist? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Those differences are elaborated in the two articles. A theoretical socialist state is one which embodies the ideals of socialism, generally ownership by the people of the means of production and management of the economic system. A communist state is a specific form of government which claims adherence to Marxism-Leninism (a term invented by Stalin) which exercises totalitarian control over all aspects of the economic system by a single-party dictatorship, most often the "Communist Party", and claims to do so in the name of the people while the people actually have little or no direct influence. A socialist state and a communist state are not the same thing and they should not be one article. Ivanvector (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Theoretical socialist state"? Can we please have a source for that? Also, an example of one that has self-identified as communist? Perhaps you mean utopian as opposed to scientific socialism? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean any of that, I mean what I said: socialist state vs. communist state. I think you should read WP:GREENCHEESE. Ivanvector (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect, I think you should read some books. You cannot provide an example of a state that you would describe as socialist or of a state that has self-identified as communist. This is pretty basic stuff. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right that most of the so called socialist states where in many ways totalitarian oligarchies and some what un-socialistic but they were also very un-communistic as well. There are many states that consider themselves socialist even though many of them are just as totalitarian and corrupt as many of the so called 'communist states', so by this logic no state should be considered socialist. A point you're missing as that not all communists are Marxist-Leninists and they aren't all supportive of Stalin so your point on the difference between communism is a bit off but don't worry to much about it its a common mistake. TURTLOS (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. There may be a fundamental problem with our naming of the articles which is causing confusion in this discussion. Our article communist state is really an article about Marxist-Leninist states, of which there are examples, but I'm not arguing (and I don't think anyone is) that these states practiced communism. But they are still called "communist" in reliable sources. Maybe we should rename that article to Marxist-Leninist state or Stalinist state. Ivanvector (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Or merge communist state into the article on actually existing socialism? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ivanvector, TURTLOS, and 2.27.78.13: None of you seem to actual understand the problem. According to communist theory, society developed from capitalism to socialism, and from socialism to communism. No communist states have never existed, since none of the state ever reached communism. From a theoretical point of view it could even be argued that none of these states developed socialism (since socialism is by definition more advanced and prosperous then capitalism).. But lets forget that. In practice, socialist state and communist state have been used to refer to the same thing; countries like the USSR and China. The USSR called and China calls themselves socialist states that are developing communism. Western reporters/writers often use the terms communist state and socialist state interchangeably. According to communist theory there is a difference between the two, and since its also very common from a Western perspective to call communist states socialist states, the article communist state should be merged into this one. --TIAYN (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, basically, short of the merge. No state has ever existed which practiced communism (or socialism), however the concept of a communist (or socialist) state is a real idea. At the moment, we have an article socialist state on the idea of what a state would look like if it actually achieved socialism, and another article communist state on the particular form of government practiced by such states as the USSR and the PRC, which was actually not communism, however western writers do use those terms to refer to those states. I don't think that these two articles should be merged because they are different topics. I'm not against doing something to make the distinction more clear, maybe renaming one or both of the articles to something more descriptive, but they are different topics and should not be merged. Ivanvector (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Ivanvector The concept of a socialist state is a real idea, the idea of a communist state is not. I agree with your point about changing the name of the articles and i have now changed my mind and i am against a merger of the two pages. @ TIAYN i agree with everyone of your comments except on the one that involves the merger. Instead the merger i think that Marxist-Leninist state should replace communist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TURTLOS (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

@TIAYN, I too agree with everything you have said. Sorry, if I have not expressed myself clearly enough. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the communist states (or "communist regimes", if one prefers that name) called themselves "socialist states", but no serious author would dare to suggest that the Soviet Union and the other Eastern Bloc regimes, not to mention Mao's China, or all the other communist regimes were the same thing as, say, social-democratic Sweden. The problem is that it is almost impossible to define precisely what a "socialist state" is supposed to be, as there are so many different meanings. The "Socialist State" is bound to be limited to the various theoretical - and conflicting - definitionsn and specify that it was used as a synonym of Communist state, mostly by the communists themselves : however, it must definitely not be merged with Communist State, as that would mean accepting the communists' POV. Whatever we think of that expression "communist state", it is definitely established as meaning "a State ruled by the local communist party, without the possibility of free elections", and of course many States had, at some point, a socialist government (which does not mean that the State itself was socialist) without subscribing to that definition. Of course "real" communism, as it was originally meant to be, has never existed, and anyway a "communist society" is supposed to be a society without a State, but then again, taking marxist and communist vocabulary at face value in their original sense would mean to ignore completely the political and historical reality of the past decades. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You seen to be having a biased anti-communist point of view on this, there isnt anything inherintly wrong with acepting a communists point of views if it alligns with the facts and neutrality and im not sure why you are saying that Marxist and communist vocabularies should not be taken with face value, how does this mean ignoring the past. Marxists have had little influence in the last few decades (aside from Leninists and Stalinists who are not even considered communists by other communists). I do not see how it is a matter of opinion whether or not Marxist-Leninism is the same as communism, even Marxist-leninist themselves know that Marxist-Leninism is a type of communism and not the same thing as communism. TURTLOS (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Why don't have to adapt ourselves a "communists point of view" : wikipedia is supposed to describe the various existing POV, not to suscribe to them. Scholars do not equate "socialist state" (which was used in many different senses by many different people) with "communist state" (which is only one meaning, although it's an important one). The point is that no socialist theorician ever had the final word on what a "socialist state" should be, which is why there were so many debates until one kind of regime - communist Russia - could present itself as the first true socialist state. But many other governments tried to build their version of "socialism" without being communist states. As for "other communists" (Who ? "Council communists" ? All three of them ?) not considering "Leninists and Stalinists" to be actual communists : they are entitled to their own opinions, but that's not the subject. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I am not saying that wikipedia should be written from a communist point of view, i am calling you out on your bias and the 'if the communists said it, it must be wrong, McCarthyist impression i got from your writing'. Scholars use Marxist-Leninist state not communist state, except maybe when they are trying distort the difference. Socialist states aren't necessarily communist, i know that but communists are socialists, they are a type of socialist. What iam saying is that it is debatable whether or not it was Marxism that failed in the twentieth century or something else (e.g. Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.) you claiming that Marxism is something different than what it claims to be based of the failures of institutions and governments that never even implemented its ideas is unfair. TURTLOS (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
        • "McCarthyist impression" : please... "Communists are socialists" : originally, they were (in theory, Lenin was still a "social democrat" in 1917), and they always claimed in their regimes that they were realizing "socialism". Yet, they also became arch-rivals of those who still called themselves "socialists". So a "communist" and what is generally known as a "socialist" are two very different things, even though communists say that they are in favor of "socialism". It has been so for over 90 years now... "Scholars use Marxist-Leninist state not communist state" : no, they don't. Many - and I do mean many - scholars do use the expression "communist state". A rapid search in many books on the subject will confirm you that. Check the sources. One may think that "communist state" is a weird concept to start with and that "communist regime" is more accurate. I thought so, years ago, until I actually started to do some serious reading on the subject, and I could see that "communist state" was widely used by scholars, especially in the english language. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Im not saying you were appeared McCarthyist because you distinguished between socialism and communism, im saying you appeared Mcarthyist for saying that communist shouldn't be taken at face value as if they are some sort of secretive cult. What scholars refer to as a communist state isn't really the main issue, some refer to it to describe a communist literally others use it to describe Leninist states due to the lack of other communist states but it isn't the politically correct term especially when used to describe a Leninist state. (hope you dont mind me using the term politically correct, i know many people are scared by it) TURTLOS (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
            • No, communist vocabulary shouldn't be taken at face value, simply because wikipedia is not supposed to submit to political POVs. "Political correctness" has nothing to do with this issue, nor do I know what it is supposed to mean in that context. What matters is the expression used by the vast majority of scholars and by people in general, which is communist state (or "communist regime") and definitely not leninist state. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: If I may add to the above conversation, I would like to mention that just because Wikipedia uses the common name for a thing, that does not mean we are saying this name is correct. For example, consider the article on the Holy Roman Empire. We are using the name "Holy Roman Empire" because that is the common (and, in this case, also the official) name of the political entity in question. That doesn't mean we consider the name a correct description of the entity in question. It's obviously NOT a correct description. You can argue that a communist state is "communist" in the same way that the Holy Roman Empire was "Roman" (or holy, or an empire). But we still use the common name as the article title, even when that name is blatantly incorrect, because we want readers to be able to find what they are searching for. And if there is a naming dispute or controversy, then the article should have a section about that. -- User1961914 (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Constitutionally ?

Please prove that any allegedly socialist state respected its constitution.Xx236 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

[4] says that Soviet law was irrrelevant, that the system acted in extra-legal ways.Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Some descibed the Soviet system as State capitalism.Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Polish socialist censored encyclopedia described three types of a socialist state:

• transition from capitalist to communist state;
• East Block state;
• not capitalist state, examples Bangladesh and Portugal.Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Terror

This page doesn't discuss the problem of terror, which is basic in Lenininsm, not any constitution or ownership.Xx236 (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Somalia

British protectorate, and any others, are certain to be outnumbered in a certain position. By the order of law and the British protectorate, Somalia is a socialist state. Idk what a socialist state is, but Somalia was one in 1970, ya.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:649:100:D18E:5D0B:4422:CECF:B584 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 

Radical change

@Fyunck(click): Its not a radical change. Its literally a tone of sources—and text which is fully referenced—that explains what a socialist state is. To somehow say that an unreferenced article is better than a referenced article is contrary to WP rules. --TIAYN (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And this non-consensus article that multiple editors have said should be reverted back, still has 14 red links!!!! Of course no one realizes it because the tag keeps getting removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Huge change on the concept of Socialist state

I'm not sure I care exactly what terms should be used to describe a socialist state, but in reading the version added today it sounds completely different than what was written before. With this big of a change I think heavy discussion is warranted first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): ... and important, as you see in the last section, I'm planning to write a section (and an article) called "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state"... This will ensure that the article discusses the same things as the former version. --TIAYN (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this amount of change requires more input than just you. It reads so differently than what it was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I promise you, I really do, that it will feature the same topics, and discuss the same topics. I promise you—the lead is still not closed to finished, and as you see from the text, neither is the article. --TIAYN (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Then it should be written as a draft, for everyone to comment on "BEFORE" it is inserted in the longstanding article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): In my defence, this article is already better than the previous versions... its more in depth, and its actually referenced (not by primary sources, but from third party sources).. Therefore its a win.. Secondly, it seems you've reverting before asking what the changes are, and what is identical. This article is way more informative. --TIAYN (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Good luck to you but I 100% disagree with this implementation. Even the first sentence has a different meaning now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): To that, I'll say thanks! If you have any specific comments please share them. --TIAYN (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but with all the red links, with all the changes of meanings, with you not following standard wiki procedures of when you are reverted for a change you don't change it back, I'm too disgusted to even look at it anymore. I'm very disappointed with your edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): You are speaking in extremely vague terms, and still failing to write what the difference actually is. --TIAYN (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Since you're failing to be cooperative, and constructive, and have a proper discussion. You still havn't said anything other than vague stuff.. I'll show the similarities (italics words show identical meaning)

• 1 Original A socialist state, socialist republic or socialist country (sometimes workers' state or workers' republic) is a sovereign state constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism.
• 1 Newest It deals with states that define themselves either as a socialist state or as a state led by a governing Marxist–Leninist party in their constitutions. For this reason alone, these states are often called communist states.
• 2 Original "The term "Communist state" is often used in the West in reference to single-party socialist states governed by parties adhering to a variant of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism despite these states officially referring to themselves as "socialist states" in the process of building socialism and do not describe themselves as "communist" or as having achieved communism."
• 2 Newest "It deals with states that define themselves either as a socialist state or as a state led by a governing Marxist–Leninist party in their constitutions. For this reason alone, these states are often called communist states."
• 3 Original A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democracy governed by a self-described socialist party, where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism. In such cases, the political system and machinery of government is not specifically structured to pursue the development of socialism.
• 3 newest "This article does not deal with countries with constitutional references to socialism and countries ruled by long-standing socialist movements (such as Venezuela for instance)."

I can continue, but this just proves that you are wrong. The only difference is that the current lead makes the differences clearer, and is much shorter. --TIAYN (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): You should also note that Maoism is Marxism–Leninism adapted to Chinese circumstances, so stating "socialist states governed by parties adhering to a variant of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism " is superfluous.

Again, if you can point to anything specific then I will gladly change it.. But you are talking in generalities. This feels like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. --TIAYN (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I've also reintroduced 3 of the old references... Currently only one part of the old lead is missing... This one

The concept of a socialist state is closely related to "state socialism", the political view that a socialist system can be established through the use of state action or government policies. As such, the concept of a socialist state is usually advocated by Leninists and Marxist–Leninists, but rejected as being either unnecessary or counterproductive by some classical Marxists, libertarian socialists and political thinkers who view the modern state as a byproduct of capitalism which would have no function in a socialist system and as a result cannot be used to construct socialism.[4]

I will be reintroducing it after I write "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" and maybe "Criticism of socialist states" (is it needed)? The former articles mentions those things very generally, but never goes into detail.. So I want to read way more on those topics before I write something stupid. It will be reintroduced. --TIAYN (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge communist state into socialist state [cancelled discussion for now]

Merge communist state -> socialist state

Reasons.. See the current version of the socialist state article here. It clarifies what the term "socialist state" actually mean—yes, its a term with clear and concise ideological meaning. I want to merge for the following reasons:

1. Sweden is not a socialist state, and neither is Venezuela or Nepal... Nepal and Sweden are liberal democracies. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a capitalist economy. It doesn't call itself a socialist state nor do Swedes in general.. Nepal is governed by communist parties that are democratically elected. The state is however not socialist—the institutions of the state are very much liberal and steeped in liberal institutions found elsewhere in the West. Venezuela is an illiberal democracy that is descending towards dictatorship.... Very much so, but the state isn't socialist and neither is the economy.
2. The term "Socialist state" were used, and has been used, in more or less every socialist state governed by a Marxist–Leninist party. Even more so, Soviet law even formally defines what "socialist state" legally means.
3. There have been many theories about how the socialist state will and should look like, but there has only been one model of socialist state—the one conceived by the Soviets... The social democratic movement has never established a socialist state or a socialist society. They have, however, instituted the welfare state—very cool, but not the same.
4. The old socialist state article was a muddle. It failed to define a clearly definable concept.
5. The term and concept "socialist state" is in 99% of cases, in scholarly sources, used in connection with the Marxist–Leninist countries.
6. Countries such as Egypt and Syria called themselves socialist states.. and the Soviet Union in turn called them national-democratic states.. These states instituted more or less the socialist state system in their own countries. Again, there are more similarities here than differences.
7. The constitutions of Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Nepal and Portugal don't call themselves socialist states.... they say, very clearly, that the state seeks to develop into a socialist society... This is likely because (a) the socialist parties were strong earlier and (b) its hard to amend a constitution so the right-wingers are not able to remove them.... However, none of these states are socialist states and what they mean by socialist or socialism is anyones guess.
8. Tanzania was a Marxist–Leninist inspired state.... It has been ruled by the same party since independence, and that party has no interest in losing power.
9. Sri Lanka has socialist in its name, and has a pledge that the state shall establish a socialist society. Its also not a socialist state.
10. Now lets look at the similarities.. Only socialist states (what this article refers to as communist states) use the term "socialist state".. No socialist state was finished constructing socialism. China is in the primary stage of socialism and the Soviet Union was constructing developed socialism.. Yes, the end goal was and still is communism, but these are small differences
11. If you look at List of socialist states, only two non-Marxist–Leninist parties use the term "socialist state". Egypt, heavily influenced by Gamal Abdel Nasser (who instituted more-or-less the Soviet system in Egypt) and Tanzania (a former Marxist–Leninist state in which the Marxist–Leninist party never lost power).
12. What are the differences? Westerners and non-communist use the term communist state and socialist state interchangeably... No ruling communist party, communist or the states themselves called themselves communist states—they called themselves socialist states
13. .... The commmunist state article even admits that these two terms mean the same thing "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—they refer to themselves as socialist states or workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism" ............ Note, even the sources the communist state and the socialist state article uses to source this are the same.

There exists no good arguments for having two separate articles on the same topic... The concept/article socialist state is not more broad than communist state. Since it literally means the same thing, it is the same thing... There might be alternative conception of the socialist state (or what socialism should be), but as far as I know, there has only been one socialist system—the one instituted by the Soviets, the system which still lives on in China, Laos, VIetnam, Cuba and North Korea. --TIAYN (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The current version of the socialist state article has over 100 references.. All references are third-party sources. All sources are produced by Western scholars (more-or-less). Therefore, the quality of that article and the referencing should be clear. That article, due to its referencing, is more reliable than this article.

Also note that a socialist state is different from the idea of establishing socialism. To some this might sound obvious. However, many movements (of all shades) have sought to establish socialism (as in the socialist mode of production, a socialist way of life or a socialist society—what usually connects these are that socialism is a vague and not a defined term)... The social democratic movements as well as libertarian socialist currents are of this kind. Wikipedia should create an article about this.... However, a "socialist state" is specifically an idea conceived of, and formulated, by the Soviet Marxist–Leninists... Very important that people understand the difference. Note, by redirecting communist state to socialist state Wikipedia is not denying that other conceptions of socialism does exist, however, the term and concept of "socialist state" was conceived by Marxist–Leninists. Establishing socialism or creating a socialist society are not synonymous with the concept of "socialist state".. They are however related, since they are usually influenced by the Marxist concept of the socialist mode of production (socialism).. Not everything is, however. For instance, Ba'athist socialism seeks to establish a Ba'athist state with a socialist society. And Libya under Gaddafi sought to establish an Islamic socialist state—again, very different altogether (the concept of "Islamic socialist state", as enunciated by Gaddafi, deserves its own article.) The same goes with Iraq's self-description "Arab State and the build-up of the socialist system" which does not mean "socialist state"... It means the Arab state, and that the Arab state should have a socialist system—the Arab state is not a socialist state, its the Arab world unified into one Arab state.

What I'm saying is this, the article is not about the socialism practised by the Marxist–Leninist per se. It is about the concept of socialist state (the term socialist state was conceived and developed by the Soviets), the theories and institutions needed and the role of the state in between the transition from socialism to communism. The concept of "socialist state" was meant to answer that question. This is why 16 out of the 18 constitutions that mentions the term "socialist state" in their constitutions were Marxist–Leninist. Tanzania was a formerly Marxist–Leninist state, and has kept "socialist state" in their constitution. Egypt is the exception (one exception).... The other states uses the terminology "socialist society", "socialist principles", "socialism", "socialism-oriented federal democratic republican state", "socialist republic" and "socialist system"...... It is important to note here that socialist state DOES NOT MEAN / IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with the following terms and concept socialist republic, socialist country, socialist principles, socialist society or socialism.. The Marxist–Leninist states did not use the term / very seldomely used "socialist republic" and never "socialist country". These are different concepts... Socialism and socialist state are not synonymous.

An article, with a proper title, should be written about the alternative conception of socialism (or the very least) socialism (as used in the broadest sense) by liberal democratic movements.. The socialism of other political movements, such as Arab nationalism and Ba'athism, deserve their own article. They theorised and tried to establish another system of socialism, and did not call their states "socialist states".

At last, the old version was not able to clarify what reform sought. Bernstein did not seek to establish a "socialist state", and neither did Kautsky and the others.. He sought to establish "socialism". Again, per WP policy, we are not suppose to interpret sources. What is clear here is that Bernstein never called for the establishment of a "socialist state" — he called for the establishment of socialism. Established socialism can mean many things; it can mean developed socialism of the Soviets, the primary stage of socialism of the Chinese, the revolutionary democracy of the Ethiopians or the national democratic revolution of the African National Congress.

In the previous discussions people have crossed hairs. Don't cross hairs. Socialist state is not synonymous with "establishing socialism", "establishing a socialist society", socialist society, socialist republic or any other kind of socialist + word or word + socialist. Socialist state, as I said previously, was a term conceived and developed by the Soviet Marxist–Leninists. By merging communist state and socialist state one is not saying that alternative conception of socialism to the Soviet model does not exist; we are merging two identical articles, too then make spaces for the "Arab state with a socialist system" / "Ba'athist state", the liberal-democratic states with constitutional goals to establish socialism, "Islamic socialist state" and other separate and distinct terms.

I am currently working on the following article: Socialism in liberal democratic constitutions. --TIAYN (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• As nominator, merge into socialist states. --TIAYN (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose for the same reasons as the discussion from three years ago, and revert the article to this revision, before the nominator unilaterally decided to completely change this article from the general topic of socialist states to a narrow evaluation of only the oligarchic nominal "socialism" practiced by Marxist-Leninist regimes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: I have not in any way changed the topic... Ivanvector, I am writing as we speak a section titled "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" which will include information on social democratic positions, anti-Leninist / anti-Stalininst positions, libertarian socialist traditions and other currents.... In addition, can you prove that other movements use the term "socialist state" and can you disprove the fact that "socialist state" is in most instances used in relation to the Marxist–Leninist state? --TIAYN (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION While other socialist currents often talk of socialism and the need to establish socialism, the term "socialist state" was conceived by Marxists and have been used by Marxist–Leninsts.. For instance, neither Marx or Engels used the term "socialist state", and neither did Lenin before the taking power (at least not much).. The term itself was also very rarily used by Bernstein, Kautsky and other Marxist / social democratic thinkers / thinkers of the left. This goes to show, that while we can have an article about a "socialist country" or "establishing socialism", "Socialist state" is a distinct concept of them... Presumably you @Ivanvector: are mixing socialist state with the concept of Socialism (Marxism)—which everyone seeks to establish (not everyone seeks to establish a socialist state). --TIAYN (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - oppose and agree with editor Ivanvector that it should be reverted back to this revision before the massive changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

POV tag

I have restored the POV tag because it seems the article is being overly selective in its sources giving undue weight to critics and far to little weight to proponents of socialist states. Dentren | ^Talk 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dentren: Good criticism! :) Can you specifically tell me what you consider as bias? ... And as far as I know I haven't written any criticism (or have scholars who are critics)... However, you said it. So please give me some specific examples so that I can fix it! :) --TIAYN (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I re-read the article and found it not biased in the way i first thought. However I find that much of the article takes the viewpoint of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. For example:

The state in Marxist–Leninist thought is a repressive institution led by a ruling class.[6] This class dominates the state, and expresses its will through it.[6] By formulating law, the ruling class uses the state to oppress other classes, and forming a class dictatorship.[6]

1)While in highly theoretical circles this may be the case, I pretty sure the Soviet Union did not describe itself in an everyday manner as an "oppressive institution". We need nuances here.

2) Then the article does not take into account non-Marxist-Leninist views of what a socialist state would be.

3) Can we have the points of view of contemporary proponents of "socialist states" incorporated to the text? I find there is very much a historicist view here.

Over-all I find however the article good. Dentren | ^Talk 03:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

1) Good point. The state was repressive, but the socialist state is democratic since its the class dictatorship of the majority of the people—as they said.

2) Like Trotskyist and liberals? I'm working on it :) The problem here is that "socialist state" is a communist term which social democrats never really used. They talked about socialism and not a "socialist state".

3) In that I agree! :) ... I'm thinking of buying Where the Party Rules: The Rank and File of China's Communist State. I hope I find some good stuff there :)

@Dentren: If its fine I'll ping you when I've fixed at least 1) so I can remove the banner. 2) is a working project, but I'm planning to add a Trotskyist section by todat or tommorow.. 3) is important. The problem really is that, after the USSR collapsed, people "forgot" that China was a socialist state. China didn't really scream it out either, until Xi Jinping came. It has gotten very much attention recently so I hope more people will write about this in the coming years. China's political system is unique so we therefore need more works that detail what the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban and Lao think! --TIAYN (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dentren:

• 1) Fixed. Added a subsection to "Socialist state" entitled "Democracy" and clarified in the new subsection "State".
• 2) I'm working on adding more on socialist state... but as I said before, "establishing socialism" is not the same as "establishing a socialist state". Socialist state is a term and theoretical conceived by the Leninist (others have used it, especially before the 1917 revolution), but after that it was and has been developed by Marxist–Leninists... Because they have been the only movement which have been able to establish socialist states.... I reading some Trotskyist text and other socialist literature—to be precise, these don't know what a socialist state is, they do however know what its not. Criticism that is. You will see a small section by the end of today / early tomorrow :)
• 3) Not done.

If you feel 1) to be sufficiently solved I hope you will consider removing the banner :) --TIAYN (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Red links

@Fyunck(click): The article didn't have 18 red links, but 7. I've reduced it now to 5. If you want me to reduce to 0 I can do that as well... However, if you ask me, its good to have red links... Users then see articles that are missing, and needs to be created. That is good, not bad.... As for collaborative behaviour, you are showing none of it..

I've already created a bunch of articles, and made hundreds of edits.. and I've promised you that this article will take into account everything that was mentioned in the previous version.. Show some faith—that would be proof of collaborative behaviour. I'll add a section on Trotskyism and liberal socialism by today / tomorrow to the article. --TIAYN (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Then our monitors are different in displaying red links. There are 9 in the "Articles and journal entries" alone! And I have no faith in an editor who has broken so many standard Wikipedia rules and protocol. Yes, you've gotten away with them so far... good for you, but that means I can't trust you to not do it more here and in other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): I haven't broken any rules. I improved the article. Instead of working with me, you're pressing you're POV on this article. You don't seem to care that 106 references from secondary sources speak against you.. You only care about yourself and you're view.

Grow up. If you want to help improve the article I'm always ready to collaborate. If you don't want to do it fine, but don't sulk. I, unlike you, am willing to compromise and turn this into a good article! :) --TIAYN (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Right, multiple rules have been shattered, things you've been blocked for twice this month already and 5x in 5 years. So don't act so righteous and collaborative. Trust has to be earned and I can't trust you. Plus you seem to have taken ownership of the article in not even allowing editors to be informed of red links that they might be able to help with. So do your thing and good luck to you in staying out of administrative eyes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I was not the only editor to revert that banner! I do collaborate, just see the section above. He gave me constructive criticism and trying to improve the article as he wrote. He actually told me what was wrong, and what needed to be fixed. And I'm implementing his changes... You haven't been able to say one clear thing other then 1) this is POV 2) this is not factually accurate and 3) you are impossible to work with... You never even tried to work with me....

I don't own this article, and I've tried several times to involve you in this article.. But instead of acknowledging the fact that this is not my POV (this is proven by the references) you refuse to even talk to me. You talk about trust—the way you behave is pathetic. I don't trust you, but I still try to work with you.

I am allowing other editors to be informed about the red links... They can read, can't they? They can scroll up and down the article, can't they? What in gods name are you talking about? You are in fact forcing me to remove red links, with youre banner, which makes it impossible for other editors to find them!

What is this? Are you saying I'm a bad editor? That I've not contributed to the community (or produced good articles)? Yes, I'm tempered and I rarely give up, however, this black-and-white view of yours is extremely simplistic. If you don't want collaborate, fine, but that is your decision. I gave you every chance to collaborate. Every! --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Stop the pinging! Yes, you are a bad editor as far as following wikipedia protocol. Very Bad in fact. It appears you are trying to take control of many articles on this topic... some of which you have been blocked. I'll let those in the political projects deal with it from now on. The red links, pov and forced acceptance is not worth my time. It sure looks like the topic has found a match made in heaven in you. Again good luck to you. 19:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)

@Fyunck(click): I have not been blocked from editing any articles....--TIAYN (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

More pinging? Move along with you the articles you own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)