Talk:Communist state/archive 9

I highly dislike this proposed fragmentation of information. We already have articles on

The whole idea of having separate articles for the structure of Communist states and for the history of such states also seems unusual to me (not to mention the fact that "regime" is a pejorative term). I will attempt to forge a compromise by merging the two current versions of the Communist state article. -- Nikodemos 21:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They would probably overlap in practice-- not because they refer to exactly the same things but because because Wikipedia editors often don't know they're doing. In practice, it would likely result in something pretty bad. Nevertheless, my point is not so much to propose writing a "criticisms of communist regimes" article as to use it as an example to help the users restoring that awful, incoherent mess that in the old communist state article understand that the reason that they keep going way off topic here is because they don't understand that the formal state definition of the subject at hand here does not simply refer to general characteristics and discourses on communist rule or regimes. By the way, regime is NOT is a pejorative term. It is a technical term with a value-neutral and specific meaning. 172 | Talk 21:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I somewhat agree with 172 here, see above.Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we know that pursuing a certain course of action would lead to a bad article in practice, then we should not pursue it. I agree that the old Communist state article was a mess - but I argue that we should try integrating the useful information from both versions rather than either reverting back and forth or creating forks. Note that there are no separate articles for

democratic regime, or autocracy and autocratic regime. The political science definition of a form of government and the history of that form of government in practice are handled in the same article. -- Nikodemos 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason we don't have those articles is that ideas like "democracy," "authoritarianism," and "totalitarianism" are already regime typologies (the aforementioned being the standard tripartite distinction of regimes that dominated American political science during the Cold War era). The communist state article, however, attempts to offer a definition of a particular system of government, just as the terms constitutional monarchy, republic, federal republic, and confederation are used as other formal state definitions. Jtdirl made this same point over and over again on this very same talk page. I'm just reiterating here what he already said a while ago: OH boy. How many times and how many people have to explain it. A system of government deals with two issues: the constitutional structures and how they work. In this case, it involves the concept of government as held within communism and the manner in which in a Cs of government, unlike in liberal democracies party and constitutional structures are embedded in each other. The general characteristics of a political system belong in an article on the political system or on history, not here. Jeez. How come you have such difficulty grasping a fundamental characteristics of this article, when no-one else can? Your information if well written belongs in an article. But simply not this one because it is as irrelevant here as discussing George W. Bush's linguistic dexterity in an article on Federal Republics, or a piece on Prince Charles's sex life in an article on the constitutional concept of constitutional monarchy. ... ÉÍREman 14:30 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC) 172 | Talk 00:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine, could you explain why the article does not comply with

WP:NPOV? The Criticism and adovocacy section belongs in an article about Communist regimes, because it criticizes the policies of Communist parties rather than "the formal system of government—executive, legislative and judicial—under communism". I would thus be confused if you are disputing the article's neutrality because of the removal of that section. -- WGee 00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

In common use, Communist states refer to the states claiming to be Marxist-Leninist. No evidence has been presented otherwise. Thus, criticisms of them should be mentioned or there should be a link to an article about this. I am waiting for Nikodemos rewrite to see if this fixes the probelm, otherwise I will restore the criticisms or create a new article and link to it from this article.Ultramarine 00:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been presented that Communist regime is the correct term. On the contrary, a quick Google search finds the term Communist state to be used in scholarly article, like this one: [4]Ultramarine 00:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Google Scholar Communist states and Communist regimes are used in about equal number of scholarly works.Ultramarine 00:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what 172 has been trying to explain, or maybe you haven't bothered to read his explanations. "Communist state" is a legitimate term in political science; likewise, it is used by many political scientists, as your Google search has demonstrated. The problem is that "communist state" does not mean what you think it means: it does not refer to the policies of Communist parties, which is what you are trying to criticize. I don't think you have access to the scholarly articles you cited, but, if you did, you would probably discover that the authors are using "communist state" in the sense described by 172, the correct sense. -- WGee 00:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence has been given for this. Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions. The article above is from a Political Science journal and use "Communist state" to refer Hungary and China, not to an abstract concept.Ultramarine 00:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] I understand that you are upset that the criticism of Communist regimes has been removed from this article or "supressed", but nobody is stopping you from creating a

Communist regime article and inserting the criticism there; in fact, 172 has recommended it, provided the article complies with Wikipedia's content policies. -- WGee 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ultramarine, I still don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. I'm pretty disappointed, since earlier I started getting the impression that you were getting it, as I read your comments This seems acceptable to me. I would like to hear what Nikodemos think. Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) and I think I somewhat agree with 172 here, see above.Ultramarine 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I did not say that "communist regime" was the "correct term" and "communist state" was the "incorrect term." I am merely pointing to the basic definitions of the terms governement, regime, and state. Based on these elementary political science terms (terms have meanings independent of Google searches), a the goverment under communism refers to something much more specific (e.g., a facade of an insitution like the Council of People's Commissars) than the broader regime or political system. 172 | Talk 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no evidence has been given for this. Wikipedia is not based on personal opinions. I have cited sources, you have not. But why not wait for Nikodemos rewrite and see how it turns out? Ultramarine 00:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine, as I said earlier respond to my comments or stop revering. If you dispute any of the particular points I made above, I am willing and ready to support them by pointing you to external sources. Saying that I have not "cited sources" does not negate what I have been saying on this talk page. We are not required to cite sources on the talk pages. I know definitions of basic concepts in the social sciences off the top of my head. I don't need to refer to sourcebooks and textbooks when I work. But if the veracity of any of the factual claims or definitions I use is challenged by someone unfamiliar with them, I will defend them with textual references. 172 | Talk 01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are required to do that. From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is
  Intangible 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am not arguing "my own point of view" or advocating anything other than reiterating basic political science definitions. If someone is skeptical about a comment I have made so far, I am ready to support my claim with any general sourcebook or textbook. It is silly to expect anyone to provide "citations" for elementary facts, especially on talk page discussions without first being asked to do so. If someone on Wikipedia claimed "the term 'communism' refers to a species within the 'bean' genus" and I disagreed with him, our claims are not equally invalid just because we both did not offer sources. We are not quite living in a world in which there is no established truth, only different opinions, after all. 172 | Talk 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then do so, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop going in circles. You know that you have not told me what you want cited and you know it. It looks like you're just posting one-line comments on talk so that it looks like you have an excuse for reverting efforts to make this article encyclopedic. 172 | Talk 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not given any citations for any claims on this talk page. I have given that above.Ultramarine 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies in that there are two ideas of what the term communist state means. For 172 (and the majority of people discussing it here) it means a theoretical system of government. For you (Ultramarine) it may refer to individual governments, countries, whatever. Fine. However, since there is a conflict, and since you believe the term communist regime is synonymous with communist state and believe it to be equally prominent in journals, why don't you go work with that term? Since 172 and others specifically want to discuss the term communist state in a way that excludes the other less formal meanings (country/regime/etc) let them work on this article. There is no need for conflict at all - since regime could suit your purpose just fine, your persistence is creating debate where none is necessary. -- TheMightyQuill 01:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be POV to talk about "the communist state" and "communist regimes" in separate articles though. It is like talking about the Nazi state, their view of an organic, racist and imperialist state, but not talking about actual atrocities commited by Nazis. Similarly, empirical facts about communist states need to be presented in this article.

Intangible 01:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a terrible comparison. Nazi were only in Germany, and it was only a shortlived regime without a chance to even set itself up with a defineable system of government. Take a look at Corporatism or Autocracy... they don't feature the mess found on this page. -- TheMightyQuill 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh not again. This is an article about a political science definition of a political science term "communist state." It is not an article presenting a communist point of view on government. In fact, the term "communist state" is was not used by Communist party ideologists, who instead designated the Soviet government the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the USSR a "socailist state." Also, dwelling on atrocities in an article on a form of a constitutional arrangement is silly, showing no understanding of the technical term the article is supposed to define. Doing so would be analogous to, e.g., criticizing the U.S. for slavery in the article on federal republic. It's off topic. Just define the technical term clearly and succinctly and spare the reader the unnecessary controversy and confusion. 172 | Talk 02:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Themightyquill, I don't think I entirely follow your distinction between my position from Ultramarine's position made above. A system of government deals with the constitutional structures and how they work formally. This is Poli Sci 101-- no disputing this claim. These constitutional structures were mere window dressing under communism. Nevertheless, they were based on a concept of government as held within the ideology of the ruling party in which in the constitutions of government, unlike in liberal democracies, party and state structures are embedded in each other. This claim is Comparative Gov 101-- again no disputing it. Now, there is going to be some variation in the exact wording of terms used to describe types of regimes and systems of governments. With the exception on terms dealing with major concepts like "state," "government," and "regime," the lexicon in political science is not totally standardized. This should not confuse anyone. Although in common usage, and even in many academic articles, it doesn't matter one bit whether we use the term "communist government" or "communist regime" or "communist state" at times, we are writing an encyclopedia article on a technical term referring to a subject that is not apparently very easy to grasp. So we have to be not only very careful but also very consistent with our usage of technical terms here. 172 | Talk 01:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of Communist State is a valid one, and only applies to the term "Communist State." You cannot write an article with your definition and simply substitute "regime" in place of "state." Correct? Ultramarine's definition of communist state, being the one in common usage, is totally synonymous with communist regime, communist government, etc, so he could write this article under the title "regime" without any problem. Correct? If you are talking about two different (though related) things, there's nothing wrong with having two different articles - it's not a POV split - so Ultramarine should do as you suggested and creat some sort of

Yes, the definition of communist state I am using (a form of government in which the state operates under the control of a Communist party) would fail as a definition of a "communist regime." Ultramarine's definition of communist state has not been made explict. I don't think he has put much thought in why he is reverting back to the old version of the article. Still, I agree with you, a lot of what Ultramarine is restoring in his reversions back to the old article could be written under the title "regime" with much fewer problems. Regarding a new article on "communist regimes," I suggest creating a main article on

criticisms of communism as a good starting point. 172 | Talk 02:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

172, no matter how much I try, I cannot understand your insistence on separating the information about the theoretical framework of Communist states and the practical history of countries that operated under that framework. If we had so much material that the article was getting too long, I could understand the split. But as it stands now, with the political science side of it barely longer than a stub, there is no justification for splitting off the history into a different article. You are probably concerned that if we don't split it off, this article will degenerate into a mess. You are only half right. Yes, we should separate the political science and the history. But we should keep them as separate sections in the same article. -- Nikodemos 08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If my explanations don't make sense, read Jtdirl's in the early archives. Perhaps he is more clear than I am. This article is just about the political science definition for a term regarding communism as a form of government-- the formal constitutional structures and how they work. The subject of the article is the term itself. 172 | Talk 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point though, that of "constitutional window dressing." There seems to be a subtle difference between a "communist state" and a "communist system." Furthermore, is a "communist system" the same as a "socialist system"? Some would say not, some would say it is [5].

Intangible 02:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think you're beginning to get it. In writing an article on a term used to define a constitutional form of something based on the model of the Soviet government is exactly on the topic of the formal constitutional facade, fig leaf, window dressing-- whatever the term to describe farces (like elections in the Soviet Union) typical of the communist system. As for your question on whether the "communist system" is the same as a "socialist system," it depends on the source. The Soviets did not use the terms "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably and thus did not refer to their economic, social, and political systems as "communist." With Western specialists, the use of one term or another often in this case boils down to the preference of the author. One could refer to the Soviet economic system as "socialist," for example, based on the socialist economic order. Or one could refer to the Soviet political system as "communist," based on the fact of Communist Party rule. 172 | Talk 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should rename this article to

Intangible 15:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

See example this article [6], which talks about communist systems, not "communist states." You talk about constitutionality in the "communist state," but this is begging the question, since in practice this constitution was worth nothing. So you might as well keep your "communist state" article, but this will not prevent people from starting a

Intangible 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

No, a communist system article gets us into the realm of doing the kind of theoretical modeling political scientists do, not encyclopedias. There are much more concrete subjects where the politics of communist rule can be discussed. I'm pretty disappointed that the important articles on concrete subjects (like, say, politics of the Soviet Union) get ignored, while an article like this (which is just supposed to be an entry on a technical term from Western political science) gets much more attention (probably because the term "communist" still gets people going even after the Cold War ended). 172 | Talk 04:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no excuse for excluding all criticisms of the Communist states. Either they should be mentioned in this article or prominently linked to. Also, please follow Wikipedia:Verifiability when making claims, like regarding claims of the correct defintion.Ultramarine 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the red herrings. You are not responding to any of the comments I have made at all. I'm beginning to wonder if either you or Nikodemos have even bothered to read my comments. Respond directly to any of the comments I have made above, or stop reverting. 172 | Talk 21:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All your comments are unsourced personal opinions. Start following Wikipedia:Verifiability.Ultramarine 21:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. That is a lie. You have not questioned the veracity of a single comment I have made. You probably haven't even bothered to read them. 172 | Talk 21:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given sources for statements above. I and other editors have asked you to give sources for you claims.Ultramarine 21:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Intangible pointed out: "From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. You have not provided any sources at all!"Ultramarine 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring and you know it, because you are obviously not interested in having a constructive, civil discussion with me. You're just playing a game here to avoid dealing with the comments I have made. Citations are not required on talk pages. I will offer citations if you are skeptical about a particular point I have made. 172 | Talk 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read the above. This is not a forum. Give sources for your claims regarding the correct defintion of Communist states. I have given sources which contradict your unsourced personal opinions.Ultramarine 21:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also point out my reply to Intangible, which he did not/could not dispute: I am not arguing "my own point of view" or advocating anything other than reiterating basic political science definitions. If someone is skeptical about a comment I have made so far, I am ready to support my claim with any general sourcebook or textbook. It is silly to expect anyone to provide "citations" for elementary facts, especially on talk page discussions without first being asked to do so. If someone on Wikipedia claimed "the term 'communism' refers to a species within the 'bean' genus" and I disagreed with him, our claims are not equally invalid just because we both did not offer sources. We are not quite living in a world in which there is no established truth, only different opinions, after all. 172 | Talk 02:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Frankly, your insistence that my comments can be ignored because I have not been offering citations in a talk page discussion is trollish. No one on Wikipedia uses talk pages like that. 172 | Talk 21:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. So am asking you to give sources, like you stated you would. Name, authors, and page numbers please, if not a direct link.Ultramarine 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that I have offered only "unsourced personal opinions" while you have "given sources" for your definition is disgustingly dishonest. The edit history of the article makes clear that you are actually not disputing my definition of the term. Our competing versions of the article offer roughly the same wording for the same definition: Communist state is a term used by many political scientists to describe a form of government in which the state operates under a one-party system. Your version My version The conflict is over the fact that you keep reinsering stuff which is totally off-topic b.s. by the standards of your own definition. Material on health care in Cuba, the environment of Central Asia, or elections in Moldova are OFF-TOPIC in an article on a form of government. 172 | Talk 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. You stated above you would provide sources if aksed. So am asking you to give these sources now, like you stated you would. Name, authors, and page numbers please, if not a direct link. Regarding the crticisms of the Communist states, deleting them violates NPOV.Ultramarine 21:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of "properly referenced material" is a red herring because we are not even disputing the definition! Based on your version of the article, by the standard of your own definition (not my "unsourced personal opininion" definition or whatever you call it), the subject of the article is a political science definition for a particular form of government. [7] This article is not the place for criticisms of communism. I know you like uploading anticommunist material. I happen to agree with your politics, but our political agendas should not get in the way of writing an encyclopedia. Given the subject of the article at hand, the stuff on this history of communist rule and "crticism and advocacy" of communism is completely off topic. 172 | Talk 21:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You stated you would give sources for you claims if asked. So where are they? We can argue forever without sources. I argue that "Communist state" includes the real-world Marxist-Leninist states and have given a source to a political science journal using the term thus. Note that I would find it acceptable, as stated before, to prominently link to another article with these criticisms, like

Communist regimes. Do you find this acceptable? Ultramarine 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that in your very last edit you added a link to the

Communist regimes if you do not like it in this article? I see no reason for deleting this material from Wikipedia completely.Ultramarine 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Which claims are you referring to? Be specific. You say, I argue that "Communist state" includes the real-world Marxist-Leninist states and have given a source to a political science journal using the term... Alright, I haven't disputed this, so what's the point? Of course what you call "real-world Marxist-Leninist states" are described as "communist states." I don't think you're asking me for a source for my definition of the term "communist state" because you're using the same definition. By the standard of the definition you offer in your own reversions, a "communist state" refers to a political science term describing a form of government. Do we disgree on what constitutes a form of government? I say a form of government refers to the formal constitutional strucutres of government and how they work. This definition would be clear to anyone who has taken comparative government 101. But if you need clarifications on the difference between a "government" and a "regime," I'll be happy to point you toward some basic reading material on politics. To be honest, I don't think we're disputing any definitions here. The dispute stems from the fact that you keep restoring irrelevant material on the history of communist regimes and criticisms of communist rule. Again, the material you keep restoring in your reversions is irrelevant in an article on a term describing a form of government. For example, would you agree that criticisms of the politics of the U.S. belong in an article on federal republic (another article on a political science term describing a particular form of government)? Or would criticisms of the politics of the UK be relevant in an article on constitutional monarchy (again, another article on a political science term describing a particular form of government)?

Regarding your final question, How about moving that to

Communist regimes if you do not like it in this article? Fine. I can agree to working out something like this, so long that any material in the end finds itself in an article where it would actually be germane to the subject at hand. I won't salvage the old material myself because I consider it too poorly written. But if you want to dump it somewhere else, I won't stop you. 172 | Talk 03:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ultramarine, I am now ready to restore the rewrite. I found a place for the old material. I inserted it in

criticisms of communist regimes. 172 | Talk 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I basically restored my last version, except that I kept the lists of communist states. [9] I know that you didn't fully restore the old version, but I still have some problems with your revisions:

1. The list of defunct communist states has the potential to become (or already is) a hub of original research. While the well known communist states are widely believed to merit the label, the more obscure ones may not fit the definition of a communist state—were "the institutions of the state and of the party intimately entwined"? I don't know certainly, and I'm not sure that you know certainly either; thus I'm skeptical of the veracity of the list. Moreover, I thought that this article was intended to discuss the formal state structures of communist states, rather than the states themselves. Nevertheless, I'll allow the list to remain for now, since I gather that its removal is quite controversial and would like to develop a consensus.
2. "... and declares its allegiance to the principles of
   Marxism-Leninism." As the case of North Korea demonstrates, it is not necessary for a communist state to espouse Marxism-Leninism (North Korea abandoned the ideology in favour of Juche
   ).

It is impossible to define a Communist state without reference to Marxism-Leninism. One cannot simply define a Communist state as a "one-party state ruled by a Communist party", for the simple reason that many Communist states were not ruled by parties officially calling themselves "Communist" (e.g. the Socialist Unity Party of Germany or the Polish United Workers' Party), and there are also numerous cases of Communist states with more than one legal political party (see, for example, National Front (Czechoslovakia)). -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know that; I was just pointing out that there are exceptions to that rule. Notice that I never removed the reference to Marxism-Leninism; I merely noted that the espousal of Marxism-Leninism is the norm rather than the rule. -- WGee 01:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I also edited the first paragraph in my version of the article to say that Communist states proclaim their allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or a derivative thereof. -- Nikodemos 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Très bien. -- WGee 09:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "What separates Communist states from other one-party systems is the fact that . . . ." This paragraph is not the most serious of my concerns; but should we actively try to distinguish a communist state from a generic dictatorship, assuming that the reader will conflate the two things? Since the first paragraph unambiguously defines a communist state, I would think that this paragraph is redundant. Based on the definition, readers should be able to make the distinction themselves, and I expect that they will.

Better to have too much information than too little. And, in any case, the definition of a Communist state (as it stands now) leaves a lot of room for overlap between Communist states and other types of dictatorship. -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Not every country ruled by a Communist Party is defined as a ‘Communist state.’" Again, I think this distinction is unnecessary, since there is no ambiguity in the article's definition of the term. As with the last paragraph, my concern is with the quality of the prose (redundancy) rather than the factual accuracy of the information—not a grave matter.

Again, better to have too much information than too little. Experience with this article shows that most readers (or at least most new readers who comment on the Talk page for the first time) come in with the ingrained assumption that any country ruled by a Communist Party is a Communist state. We have had dozens of requests to list Moldova as a Communist state, for example. -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Marxists define 'communism' as a form of society that abolishes private property, social classes, and the state itself. But no Communist Party-run government ever abolished social classes or the state, and private property was restricted but never fully eliminated. Therefore, since Communist Parties claimed to follow Marxism-Leninism (which is a variant of Marxism), they could not and did not call their countries 'communist'. I don't think that this elaboration is necessary. 172's revision succinctly and accurately explained that the term "communist state" is an oxymoron because communism is a form of social organization in which the state would have "withered away". There's no need to discuss whether or not communist states actually abolished social classes and private property, as that is difficult to determine in some cases. The conflict between theory and practice would require a degree of elucidation that is beyond the scope of this article.

Again, we hit the "no need to discuss" issue... I believe there is a need to discuss this, and given the very small size of this article right now, I do not see how a little more information could do any harm. -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. "The merger of party and state was never an official part of the system of government that existed in Communist states. Officially, the state was independent from the party, and the institutions of the state had sole authority to govern the country." If the role of the Communist Party as a vanguard is enshrined in the constitution, does that not mean that the party is officially merged with the state?

-- WGee 04:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Constitutionally, the State and Party were supposed to have different roles. In practice, they played the same role. -- Nikodemos 01:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to differ on that one. Note, for example, Article 121 of Cuba's constitution: "The courts constitute a system of state bodies which are set up with functional independence from all other systems and they are only subordinated to the National Assembly of People’s Power and the Council of State." Et voila, state institutions (the judiciary) and party institutions (the National Assembly and the Council of State, which are essentially branches of the Communist Party) are officially merged. Also note Article 5, which is actually a more appropriate example: "The Communist Party of Cuba . . . is the highest leading force of society and of the state." The Communist Party is thus described, in an official document, as an extension (a "force") of the state. The constitutional enshrinement of the Communist Party as the leading force of society and of the state offically paves the way for the amalgamation of the party and the state. -- WGee 09:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will remove the sentences claiming that the State and Party were not officially merged. Clearly this is a disputed issue, and it is not particularly important in any case (whatever the de jure situation happened to be, the State and Party were de facto merged). -- Nikodemos 20:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments reinforce the notion that I had earlier, that it might be best to rename this article to

Intangible 04:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

WGee: Was there a reason you nixed my mention of Belarus and Turkmenistan and why they might be considered Communist states by some? Calbaer 05:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because the suggestion that Belarus and Turkmenistan are communist states is original research and false. Neither of them are controlled by nominal Communist Parties that espouse Marxism-Leninism; neither of them have constitutions which declare the state's allegiance to Marxism-Leninism or which guarantee the Party's preponderance as a vanguard. Although the two regimes have continued many of the economic and political policies of their Soviet predecessors, this article discuss formal state structures only, not regimes. -- WGee 06:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...which is why I said that they're not considered Communist states for the article, even though there are more operational differences between China and the USSR than those states and the USSR. Calbaer 08:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the last sentence of your revision. Nevertheless, why should we discuss states that are not even run by nominal Communist Parties? It's glaringly evident that such states could not possibly fit the definition of communist state; thus the disclaimer is superfluous. Moreover, by asserting the similarity of Belarus and Turkmenistan to their Soviet predecessors, we are opening up a debate that is beyond the scope of this article. And, again, your disclaimer concerns the regimes of those states rather than their formal constitutional structures. -- WGee 18:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I just wanted to make it more clear that the label "Communist" is self-imposed and not necessarily reflective of state operations. Calbaer 21:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WGee, I urge you to reconsider the policy of reverting back to 172. I agree that the constitutional structure of a Communist state should not be conflated with the historical regimes that have ruled Communist states, but neither should we ignore the connection between the two. Again, I must point out that there is nothing wrong with having a history of republics in the republic article, or a history of monarchies in the monarchy article.

In any case, at the very least I ask you to not revert my edits to the introduction and the Usage of the term section. You reason for reverting was that the information I added is unnecessary. I believe it is very much necessary, and having too much information is always better than having too little. I've also made a few corrections that I believe should be kept (for instance, not all multi-party democracies are liberal democracies; thus a Communist state should be contrasted with a multi-party system in general). -- Nikodemos 04:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy regarding the republic and monarchy articles is incorrect because, just like this article, those articles pertain to a formal system of government. So neither this article nor those should discuss the politics that arose out of those systems of government, only the constitutional structures themselves. For example, the following paragraph is irrelevant to this article because it deals with the regime of the USSR: "In the late 1920s, the faction led by Joseph Stalin managed to achieve supremacy over the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. . . ." Unless you explain how Stalin's regime affected the state structure of the Soviet Union—that is, the formal relationship between the state and the Communist Party—then that paragraph has no place in this article. That said, I wouldn't oppose the history section if it discussed the history of the development of the Communist state rather than the history of Communist regimes. In other words, the history section currently chronicles the history of states that were called "communist states" (and thus performs exactly the same fuction as the History of series), whereas I would like the section to chronicle the constitutional developments that caused the party to become embedded in the state, or which altered the relationship between the state and the party.

Regarding the prose: so far nobody has made explicit their confusion as to the meaning of the term communist state, suggesting that the clarifications you propose are not needed. You mentioned before that a user once asserted that Moldova is a communist state, but that user must have done so out of ignorance because the lead sentence is very clear about what a communist state necessitates. If somebody were to read the article and then expressly tell us that the prose is unclear, then clarifications would be necessary, but so far it seems that any confusion is the result of ignorance and not of ambiguous prose. Of course, some of our disagreements are due to a difference in tastes, and there's no accounting for taste as they say. -- WGee 09:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the history, it is impossible to discuss constitutional developments without mentioning the political forces behind those developments (that is, without mentioning who or what drove the developments in question). I agree that the history section I added held insufficient information about constitutional developments, but it was a start, don't you think?

Regarding the prose: I hereby make explicit my belief that the prose is confusing. You are quite correct that the user who called Moldova a communist state did so out of ignorance. And it is the purpose of wikipedia to combat ignorance. If a reader remains ignorant of a key fact after reading the relevant article, then the article does not explain that fact properly. In any case, you may not remove text on the grounds that you believe it to be unnecessary (unless you are trying to cut down the size of an excessively long article, which is not the case here). In general, you may only remove text that is incorrect. If there is a dispute on whether some text is necessary or not, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and keep it?

In my next edit, I will restore my edits to the introduction and the "use of the term" sections only, leaving the history out. I will also not restore the controversial text in the State and Party section that you object to. I believe this would be a good starting point for a consensus version and I urge you not to revert. -- Nikodemos 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I don't have the time to continue this discussion. :-) I kept your clarifications for the most part, but you must be careful not to be verbose. That said, I replaced your wordy paragraph about how communist states define themselves with the one from 172's version, which conveys the same message in its entirety but with fewer words. Also, some of your diction is too informal and awkward for an encyclopedic article; in other cases, I just didn't like it. You got the better part of this compromise, since virtually all of your clarifications are there, so that I now urge you not to revert. :-) -- WGee 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As you saw, I did not revert. :-) -- Nikodemos 23:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a less important note, I don't think that most political scientists capitalize the "c" in communist state, and so neither should we—though I understand why one would be induced to do so. -- WGee 02:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV requires that all views should be presented. Therefore, there should at the very least be a link to the article about criticisms of communist regimes.Ultramarine 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I have added a link in the see also section. The question is not the existence of the link (of course there should be one), but where to put the link. I endorse your idea of having a criticism section in the article to carry the link, Ultramarine. -- Nikodemos 17:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "state" is separate from the "regime." Please note the difference between the two, which has been explained to you thoroughly. -- WGee 07:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV requies the inclusion also of opposing views.Ultramarine 11:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. -- WGee 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted sarcasm is not an appropriate answer. If "regime" is the correct description for these nations, then the article name should be changed. Done.Ultramarine 17:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You knew perfectly well that your name change was going to be vehemently opposed before making it, and you are fully aware of the difference between the concepts of regime and state, since it's been explained to you several times; nevertheless, you choose to change the name of the article without any discussion or reasoning just so you can include an article that favours your POV. Keep this up and I'll report you to the administrators' noticeboard for disrupting this article to make a

WP:POINT. -- WGee 22:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Strange duble standard. When criticzing these nations, they should be called regimes. When discussing them otherwise, they should be called states. Then they cannot be criticzed. Make up your mind, Which is the correct title for these nations? Ultramarine 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a separate article called

Communist regimes that deals with the actual history and actions of these nations (including criticisms of these)? Then this article should deal only with purely theoretical Marxist concepts and everything else be moved to the other article (which obivously must be mentioned prominently here).Ultramarine 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh my God, the terms state, regime, and nation do mean different things! Look them up. WGee shouldn't have to be teaching elementary civics here! 172 | Talk 05:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me. Again, which article should present the history of these nations? If in this article, then there should also be a section for this here. If one the other hand this is not the article for their history, then we should create another article.Ultramarine 12:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, be accurate when writing for an encyclopedia. Nation refers to the people, not to the rule of a state. Histories of nation-states is found in... believe it or not... articles about the histories of nation-states, such as 'history of the Soviet Union' and the 'history of the People's republic of China.' 172 | Talk 15:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am intending to start a general article about these states. Where should it go? Here or in Communist regimes?Ultramarine 13:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently watching the

No, the counterpart to that article is one dealing with fields more broadly concerned with understanding communist rule. Articles on criticisms of particular subjects are articles on discourses. The subject of that article is the discourses of anticommunist writers such as Courtois, Rummel, Pipes, and Conquest. There is a large array of articles dealing with subjects concerned with understanding Communist rule, such as the article on

Soviet and Communist studies. 172 | Talk 15:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I am intending to start a general article about these states. Where should it go? Here or in Communist regimes?Ultramarine 13:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I read that the term "communist" with a lower-case c was used to denote the original ideology and "Communist" with a large 'C' to denote the (then) modern Soviet system. More specifically large 'C' related to the "Communist Party" (of whatever country) much like, in say Canada and Australia you have small "l" "liberals" and large 'L' Liberals the latter being related to the Liberal Party of Canada or Liberal Party of Australia (which may or may not be "liberal" parties in ideology depending on your POV). If we use the large 'C' in this and other articles we are, in my view, being more NPOV by specifically denoting people, actions, parties, states etc related to this or that Communist Party rather than commenting on whether or not they are truly "communist".

For evidence that this large C/small c distinction is widely held see Channel 4's glossary (under "communism, Communism") also [10]

Also see distinction between "large C" and "small c" conservativsm (in countries with Conservative Parties such as Britain) as well as the aforementioned large L and small l liberals. General Idea 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true "Communist state is a term used by many political scientists to describe a form of government " communist state is name for english spoken, is not used in many others languages --Francomemoria 10:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In marxism there is no communist state as there is no state when communism is reached. Ericd 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of the mentioned countries ever proclaimed to be communist, but they have proclaimed to be socialist, or change its name to "Countries ruled by communist parties". Why should the world learn to use wrong terms? Redstar1987

See response below. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think that a lot of wiki-editors rightly merge articles where one is named after a misnomer, and as 'socialist state' and 'communist state' essentially mean the same thing, I think it would be more accurate, helpful to readers trying to learn about these things, and better for wikipedia to merge these two articles. --Bayano 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, this misnomer has been--and continues to be--used by western political scientists and historians to refer to socialist states that have been--or continue to be--dominated by communist parties. They do so to purposely disassociate the communist party run states from other (typically populist) versions of socialism (the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, modern Venezuela, etc). Obviously, individuals who subscribe to communism have trouble with the term, for it does not "jive" with Marxist-Leninist or Maoist political theory. However, those who are not strict followers of that tradition (from populist anti-communist socialists on the left to traditional conservatives on the right) have chosen not to operate within the Marxist-Leninist/Maoist theoretical boundaries (probably out of the fact that they do not believe that the socialist "communist state" will devolve into the predicted communist utopia). The socialist state page regards all forms of socialist states. As such, there is a brief section on Communist run socialist states on the socialist state page. That section refers back to this page, for the readers who want to know more about this particular group of communist run socialist states. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The term Communist state does not refer to a state that is actually communist; that is an impossibility as with communism there is no state and in order to attain communism one must first have a world of socialist states/a single socialist global state (and no current states are socialist.) Rather, the term "Communist state" refers to a state in which the sole political party with any significant power subscribes to one of the Stalinist ideologies, as the article explains. That's very different from socialist state. 71.198.98.233 01:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Moldova, President Voronin is a member of a Communist Party. However, the country is not classified as Communist even though is ruled by a communist. Communist countries are all one-party states while Moldova is not so could Moldova be a sole example of a Communist but democratic state?Abc85 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now explained in the article. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 19:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]