DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Communist state

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác


Reversal of Moxys arbitrary edit

[edit]

Hi

I want to continue my work on this article, but for that to happen, I need to gain some support. Moxy made an arbitrary reversal on 22 February 2024 without actually looking at any of the content or differences in the article. This is my version

Why did I reorganise the article? First, there are several inaccuracies. If you read what the sources say (those cited in the article) and what is stated in the "State" section you will find several "liberties" in the current version. The state section is also confused, and mixes basic Marxist fundamentals. It also present state formations, but don't actually clarify what for example Marxist-Leninists mean by "Socialist state" or "People's democratic state" is. My version does. The section, "The state system of unitary power", was greatly shortened, but all the essential retained (but yet again there are several factual errors).

I also removed the current "Economic system" and was planning to write a longer one, one the sacralisation of public and collective property (Stalin's words, not mine), the planned economy, the Yugoslav attempt at social ownership and the ideological rationalisation of a socialist market economy, but never came that far.

What are the benefits of my version?: It delineates quite clearly what a communist state is and was, what the communist form of government is and was, the central institutions in these states and their theoretical rationalisation that the state was the product of material relations, that is, class relations (that is, the economy) in a neutral way. None of this is even clearly stated even if there exists a clear scholarly consensus on this.

About me: I edit a lot on communism, but I also know a great deal about it. My latest article contributions of note are Leader of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (FL), Presidency of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia (GA), Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, 12th Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam (FL) etc.

The version I worked on was completely referenced by academic sources, and reorganised the article into clearer headings:

  1. Introduction
  2. Etymology
    1. Governing principles
    2. Class System
    3. Democratic Centralism
    4. Economic relations and stage theory
    5. Leading role of the party
    6. Unified power through the highest organ of state power
    7. Transmission belts
  3. Institutional variations
    1. Civilian control of the military
    2. Federalism
    3. Head of state
    4. Supreme power bodies
      1. In the "Institutional variations" section I was also planning to add sub-sections on "Collective leadership", "Cult of personality", "Nepotism", "Leaderism" and "Competitive or non-competitive elections" amongst others, but I was never able to complete it.
  4. Analysis
      1. Criticism

Is there any support for continuing my work on this article?

I hope everyone who partakes in this discussion reads my version before taking a position. It might have its weaknesses, but its a far better text than this one.

I am asking everyone that have made sizable contributions to this article as of late. I hope you read my old version: @Small colossal, Zilch-nada, C.J. Griffin, Vipz, David J Johnson, Katangais, BenWelkins, Alisperic, and Altenmann:

Hope to hear from you! TheUzbek (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have made only one "minor" edit and am not interested. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uzbek, you completely eliminated a lot of properly referenced content without explaining why. There are issues with the current revision, nobody disputes that. That does not justify the wholesale removal of content and such broad, sweeping changes to the structure of the article without first seeking consensus, which you failed to do. --Katangais (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TO DO

[edit]

Both versions of the article are in extremely sorry state, for different reasons. Therefore you cannot just replace one version with another. Obviously we are neither karls marxes nor adam smiths, not even robert furtaks to entrust a single person the 176% rewriting of the article on such a monumental subject. Therefore the only way to achieve consensus is to work in small pieces.

My immediate suggestion is to simplify the article as much as possible to make it manageable.

  • The lede must be rewritten. Per our rules, the lede must be the summary of the article. I would suggest to work on the lede here, in a dedicated section of the talk page: first make a sketch of what the lede must contain, then make a draft and accept it, without much nitpicking.
    • If there are subtopics are missing from the article, do not squeeze it into the lede: make a "stubsection" first, with references and all, and then add a sentence into the lede. And conversely, when the article content is expanded my a major sub-subject, make sure it is mentioned in the lede, but without verbosity.
    • Immediate suggestions:
      • The first paragraph must be split into two pieces, the second one (starting with "After the peak...") moved all the way down the lede.
      • The first two sentences of the third paragraph must be the second paragraph, the rest moved into the new section, "Terminology". TheUzbek's version does have section "Etymology", which is wrong title: this is not about linguistics and may be moved here retitled to "Terminology" right now, because it does not interfere with the current article.
  • Delete the whole section, "State" ad 95% irrelevant. More precisely, create a new article out of it, Marxist-Leninist theory of state. We do have Marx's theory of the state, but I guess you know my opinion about it: it sucks.:-)
  • Trim severely the section "Ruling party" to bare minimum. Its subsection "Internal organization" does not at all belong here. The subsection "Leading role" directly relevant to the article subject but it is an extremely naive and chaotic product of, like, college students. Most surely direct quotes from primary sources of Stalin and documents of various comparties do not belong here.
  • Section "Military" must be trimmed severely and summarized. Again we dont need to see neither maotzedong nor costitution of of the CCP here. They belong to the corresponding individual articles.
  • "Economic system" is OK at the first glance. If something is missing, it can be added. If grave errors, may be fixed. But again, without branching into individual peculiarities of the comstates.

@TheUzbek:

  • Please list the items you think are missing from the current article and which sections require a major overhaul.
  • If there are local inaccuracies, fix them in the article locally, each fix in a separate edit, with an adequate edit summary, so that each change can be individually discussed. --Altenmann >talk 20:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Democratic Centralism" in your TOC: I am not sure it belongs here: AFAIK it is a principle of a communist party, not of the state. (and the article "Democratic centralism", ... you know my word: it sucks. --Altenmann >talk 20:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is wrong; democratic centralism is written into the state constitutions of nearly all communist states, for example China has it in its constitution. TheUzbek (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Transmission belt" is not a principle, but a metaphor (I would say, a rather obsolete even in the history of the Soviet Union and replaced by other slogans/principles/buzzwords/"silent conventions") and I am not sure it must have a separate section. By the way, your article Transmission belt suffers from the same misunderstanding. But this must be discussed not here, but in Talk:Transmission belt. --Altenmann >talk 20:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A principle, a catch-all term for organisation. Lenin sought to create a transmission belt from mass organisations to the communist party. I am unsure of what I don't understand... If we are to collaborate you need to be more specific. TheUzbek (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a bit unclear what version you are talking about. However, if we are to work I would like to merge "Leading role of the party" into two other sections; A section not created called "Colonialisation of the state" (or something much less controversial) and "Unified power through the highest organ of state power". Formally-speaking, the communist party dominates the state by having a two-thirds majority in the highest state organ of power. However, the party also create internal groupings within all state organs to dominate it. These are two different processes, and the "leading role of the party and state" is just the principle that legitimate this.
"If there are local inaccuracies, fix them in the article locally, each fix in a separate edit, with an adequate edit summary, so that each change can be individually discussed." I did, see my version on "Ruling class".
Have you read my version? It should be abundantly clear; it lists everything this version does, removing factual inaccuracies and adding new ones. I beg you to make my version seriously.
Of course military is useful because this is about how the communist state operates. The fact that these states had different forms of organising the armed forces is of scholarly interests and of broader one as well.
While, I have nothing against you're comments, you have failed to write a single argument of why the version I wrote is, according to you're words, "extremely sorry state". For example, my lead actual says something about the form of government this lead says nothing. TheUzbek (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Other articles that suck: Socialist state (WP:CFORK?), Legislature in communist states. --Altenmann >talk 20:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can collaborate; we both agree it sucks. But then to do that I need to know specifically what you feel is missing in this one, what you feel is missing in "my version" and how you want to work it out. The socialist state article sucks, but the " Legislature in communist states" (while short) at least discusses the uniqueness of the subject (unified power and how they operated in the system formally speaking). I also wrote the article on the Central committee; does that also "suck"? TheUzbek (talk) 09:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SOCIALIST STATE or HALF-STATE

[edit]

in marxism there isn't State in communism. the transiction between capitalism and communism is called Socialist State (or semi-state/half-state). 2001:B07:6471:6C4A:EDEE:9BF3:8C29:91A8 (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded ~2025-35575-54 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

partisan

[edit]

If, according to the article, term "communist state" is a partisan application of external observers, then why does the article adopt it? FourLights (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because communist states can self-identify as socialist state (communism), people's democratic states, national democratic states or, for example, proletarian states undergoing non-capitalist development (as the USSR did until the 1930s). Communist state is a catch all term; socialist state isn't. See List of communist states. TheUzbek (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>undergoing noncapitalist development (as the USSR did until the 1930s)
They never abolished commodities nor currency, the USSR was never socialist. Liberals don't know a thing I swear 78.208.141.49 (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2025

[edit]

“Change China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam to Laos, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Cuba” 129.126.83.246 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: They are currently in alphabetical. Unclear why you'd like them to be changed. Nubzor [T][C] 20:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purposeless and arbitrary in its current state

[edit]

This article, in its current state it is completely redundant, there cannot be a "communist state" thats an oxymoron. Either this articles should reflect better that a "communist state" is a western reflection on states lead by communists or it should be moved to the socialist state article. It is wholly unclear why this article is so objective, as if "communist state" is the objectively true term and all states lead by communists self-identifying as something else are in some kind of delusion. It's a really simple rationale and there isnt even a need to have a deeper knowledge of Marxism. A communist society is a stateless society, thus a state cannot be a communist society. This article should better reflect that these are outside perceptions and an occiasionally useful classification of these states and not an objective category. As far as I can tell there isn't a single source about the term "communist state" they are largely for the history of these states that the article decides with the authority of obviusness to be "communist states". It is true that commonly these states are referred to as "Communist States" in the western world but the introduction should at least reflect on why is that misconception. 80.98.26.97 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2025

[edit]
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. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Communist state → Marxist-Leninist stateMarxist-Leninist state – Term is more accurate for what the article describes. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 06:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Vestrian24Bio 04:02, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention recently that this page has been the link used in the government section of multiple Warsaw Pact-aligned states in the Cold War, such as the Bulgarian People's Republic (which is where I first found this), and also modern day nations like Laos and Cuba.

It also seems that this page has already garnered some tension regarding terminology. This tension has naturally bled into the infoboxes of these states.

Therefore I think it is best that we get a broad consensus with people from all over the Politics and History topics. It seems to me that it's the same few individuals participating in these, and the fact it is spread amongst multiple pages has diffused the input of editors.

Thank you. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 06:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for starting a proper process.
  1. The term "communist state" is scholarly. It gets 60 400 hits on Google scholar. In contrast, Marxist-Leninist state garners 2 020 hits. Scholars use the term communist state.
  2. Communism is a much more accessible term for our readers than Marxism–Leninism. We can prove this by looking at our page view statistics. In the period 02.12.2025 to 22.12.2025, communism had 55,648 page views and Marxism–Leninism had 32,520. Communism is both what scholars use, and the most accessible term for our readers
  3. Is this clarification? Not really. All communist states that have existed have been ruled by Marxist–Leninist parties. Is Marxism–Leninism a good term? Not really, since many Marxist–Leninist parties have advocated another form of state governance than the classical state structure established by the Soviets. Does anyone remember eurocommunism? The South African Communist Party supports a multi-party system. Marxism–Leninism is an ideology, not a monolithic idea on how the state should look after the revolution.
  4. Readers need to be sent to the article that actually discusses the topic at hand. This article is about the state system as it existed in communist states. No other articles here on Wikipedia is specifically about that. It's strange to advocate that this term should not be used, but another more general term should be used. That also breaches WP:ACCESILIBITY.
  5. As such, it should be clear to anyone reading this that both scholars (Wikipedia:Verifiability), general readers (WP:ACCESSIBILITY), and maintain absolute clarity, the term communist state should remain. Generally, I will say that this Marxist–Leninist state thing is mostly a Wikipedia thing, and the general argument against its use is that the term communist state is an oxymoron (since Marx claimed communism would be stateless). But this is WP:Original Research. Wikipedians can't decide to not use a scholarly term because of their interpretation of Marx: Marx wrote about communism and NOT communist states. The term is not an oxymoron if scholars use it.
  6. I Oppose.
TheUzbek (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Communist state" is an oxymoron. Communism is when the state withers away due to the end of class conflict. Saying Communist and state in the same word doesn't make sense. TheUzbek's comment saying that the general argument against its use is that the term communist state is an oxymoron (since Marx claimed communism would be stateless) but then saying that this is WP:Original Research. doesn't make sense. You already said the thing. The theory is that communism is one that is stateless. How is that WP:OR? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:41, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Communist state is a scholarly term used by scholars such as Robert Service, Archie Brown. Is Wikipedia about what scholars say or what Marx said? We have an article on communism as Marx defined it; its called communist society. TheUzbek (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is etymological fallacy in part, this term is used by western academics during and after the cold war not at all linked to what marx said User:Easternsahara 02:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Soviet Union, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Anthropology, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Chinese history, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce, and WikiProject China have been notified of this discussion. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:42, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there specific sources on the terminology? It would be good if the RM had at least one or two. The article is about a specific form of government, what do sources tend to call this? Is that name potentially ambiguous? I doubt the casual reader is going to read much difference into Marxist-Leninist state vs Communist state. CMD (talk) 13:29, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Communist state" seems to be the common name for this topic. Per the criteria, the current title is also more widely understood by readers (recognizable and natural) and more concise. At this point the argument over precision doesn't really matter, since so many other points lean in the opposite direction, but if someone has extraordinary evidence for the claim that the proposed title would be more precise, I would be happy to look at it. Toadspike [Talk] 19:57, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but there is an argument to be made for moving this article to "Communist state system" or just "Communist system". There are a bunch of scholarly articles out there: "What is a communist system?", "The new class: an analysis of the communist system", "Systems theory and the communist system", "What is communism?", "The Comparative Study of Communist Political Systems", "The Communist System", "Communist and Post-Communist Systems", "The nature of the communist system: Notes on state, party, and society", "The transformation of communist systems". All of them call it "Communist state", "Communist system", or "Communist state system" interchangeably. However, by having a system instead of a state, we stop having to rehash the argument about "Communist state" being an oxymoron. TheUzbek (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:29, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be okay with a lede that goes something like "A Communist State is a common term to refer to a state under a government that adopts Marxism Leninism", something like that. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 21:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But a communist state/system can be adopted, theoretically, by non-communists. That is why, for example, the Kuomintang adopted democratic centralism. A system is not an ideology... TheUzbek (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Communist state" is the common name for the subject this article covers, as comments above demonstrate, even if it's not the 'correct' technical term in Marxist parlance. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 01:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per theUzbek, he has covered all arguments against the proposal. User:Easternsahara 02:11, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Chinese history, WikiProject Anthropology/Oral tradition taskforce, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject China, WikiProject Anthropology, WikiProject Socialism, and WikiProject Soviet Union have been notified of this discussion. Vestrian24Bio 04:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
these were already notified, do you mean that it was relisted in these venues? User:Easternsahara 04:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No no, they were just notified again; in case there are other users who may have missed the first one. Vestrian24Bio 04:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio I responded at WPZH assuming this was an accident, but I'm only now seeing that you sent duplicate notifications on purpose. Please never do this again. It is a waste of everyone's time. Toadspike [Talk] 16:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.