Jump to content

Talk:Socialist state: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,553,708 edits
m Signing comment by 96.55.128.117 - "→Useless map: "
Line 80: Line 80:
<ref/>
<ref/>
{http://www.worldbookonline.com/student/article?id=ar126880&st=communism} <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.55.128.117|96.55.128.117]] ([[User talk:96.55.128.117|talk]]) 00:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{http://www.worldbookonline.com/student/article?id=ar126880&st=communism} <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.55.128.117|96.55.128.117]] ([[User talk:96.55.128.117|talk]]) 00:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Merger Proposal==

{{Discussion top|result = {{Failed|WP:RCON}}

The [[Wikipedia:Rough consensus|rough consensus]] of the discussion is to '''Keep''' both articles. [[User:Logical1004|Logical1004]] ([[User talk:Logical1004|talk]]) 21:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)}}


==Communist state should be merged into this article==
==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.
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.
Line 132: Line 140:
*******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''. [[User:Jean-Jacques Georges|Jean-Jacques Georges]] ([[User talk:Jean-Jacques Georges|talk]]) 07:09, 7 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''. [[User:Jean-Jacques Georges|Jean-Jacques Georges]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:User1961914|User1961914]] ([[User talk:User1961914|talk]]) 00:44, 21 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. -- [[User:User1961914|User1961914]] ([[User talk:User1961914|talk]]) 00:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}

Revision as of 21:30, 19 June 2015

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [1]

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".[2]

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." [3]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  1. ^ Marx, The Civil War in France (1871)
  2. ^ Marx, The Civil War in France (1871), 1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels 'On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune'
  3. ^ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm

Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). {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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please see my comment below. Aravind V R (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
The source you have provided is unreliable. Can you please provide another one. 2.27.78.13 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Any reliable sources to support your opinion that "Communist state is a misnomer for socialist state"? TDL (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or merge communist state into the article on actually existing socialism? 2.27.78.13 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@ 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • "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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_state&oldid=667684122"