Talk:Communist state

First lede paragraph changes

@Altenmann first, can you name some examples of multi-party communist states you have in mind? Communism is the ideology according to which communist parties govern and administer states that we call communist states. It does not make sense to state that a state is governed by an ideology itself. And please acknowledge standard practice among scholars on capitalization of the words derived from "Communism" (see [Note 3] in the lede of article Communism). –Vipz (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

That's easy: GDR, Communist Poland. I agree with your second and third concerns, fixed. - Altenmann >talk 18:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. One can argue that multipartyism was kinda formal there, but they did have several parties. I also fixed my sloppy edit about Marxism-Leninism. - Altenmann >talk 18:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Allowing a few minor parties that are subservient/subordinate to the ruling party doesn't exactly disqualify one as a one-party state. Such parties were and still are pretty standard in most one-party states, North Korea for example. –Vipz (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I see I didnt pay attention to the text of "one-party state". Undone. But I this needs clarification, so I rephrased a bit. - Altenmann >talk 19:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the first sentence needs to be briefer, akin to the previous version. You've made it too long and wordy by performing some kind of a merge of the first two sentences. –Vipz (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

OK splitting restored, although the text "...Marxism–Leninism. Marxism–Leninism..." looks weird and clutterish to me. I was taught that long sentences are OK as long as its logic is sequential, i.e., without complicated conditional clauses. But well, modern readers demand less memory... :-) - Altenmann >talk 19:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way to avoid repeating ML like that, e.g. [...] adhering to some form of Marxism–Leninism, a branch of communist ideology. Marxism–Leninism was [...]? –Vipz (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverted bold removal

@Altenmann Hello, just following you up on your reversal of my admittedly bold removal. My logic is that the "Analysis" section of the "Communist state" article should thoroughly analyse communist states (e.g., economic aspects, socialist economic planning, among others), not a different regime that followed.

I have two further reasons: 1) The sources cited refer to the discourse on communism in relation the capitalism that followed (which is a different topic), and 2) The sources' main topic is not about analysis of communist states. I think the comparison could be made to the analysis of the Russian Empire by considering the chaos of the Russian Revolution / first Soviet decade, or analysis of the Ancien Regime by considering the French Revolution. Those characteristics would perhaps be suitable for a "Legacy" section - although not overstated - but certainly not under an "analysis" of "communist states" themselves - a different topic. Thanks. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I understood this myself after some thinking, therefore I self-reverted. The two deleted pieces were not about communist state, but about results of "shock therapy" of rapid destruction of what basically was welfare state (said with caveats). Gorbachev tried to perform a smooth transition to whatever he had in mindd, but he underestimated how rotten the regime was. Of course, it is a separate subject. - Altenmann >talk 04:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this rationale for removal. The sources cited do not talk about the 1990s period by itself, but explicitly in relation to the communist period that came before. They are comparing the communist and post-communist periods in the history of certain countries. I think this fits within the subject of this article very well. It is normal for sources to compare two consecutive historical periods with each other, and those kinds of sources can be used in the articles for either period (or both). For example, looking at the article for the Ancien Regime, I see numerous references to the French Revolution in the article text, and several sources that talk about the revolutionary period that followed.

Analysis of the Ancien Regime by considering the French Revolution is not just possible, but extremely common. And in general, this holds true for the periods before/after a major change in almost any country's history. History books and other authors make before/after comparisons very frequently. I do not agree with excluding such "before/after sources" from the article about the "before" period (or the article about the "after" period either, they can be used in both).

I do agree that the sources under discussion would probably be better suited for a "Legacy" section, or for the end of a "History" section. But right now, the article does not have those sections (it doesn't even have a History section, which is a problem). "Analysis" appears to be a catch-all for all sorts of things that could go in "History", "Legacy", etc. It may be a good idea to rework some (or all) of the "Analysis" section into "History", "Legacy", and other sections in the future.

For now, I don't think we should remove sourced information just because the most appropriate section for that information hasn't been created yet. It's fine to place information in a less than perfect location in the article if the best location doesn't exist. The information under discussion here is obviously related to communist states, and not off topic for the article. It may simply need to be moved, when the article gets more sections or is reorganized. - Small colossal (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a) that legacy is a separate topic from overall analysis, and that b) a separate "legacy" section should thus be made, including the aforesaid content. I am still not entirely sure that the legacy section should FOCUS on the downfall as it does in e.g. the communism article (an issue I previously raised there in talk) but accept at least some mention of pre- and post-1991 contrast. Legacy encompasses more than post-1991 public memory, for instance; e.g., Solzhenitsyn and various dissidents wrote of legacy DURING the Soviet Union - that is still an analysis of legacy. Zilch-nada (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just taken a closer look over the article as a whole, and I think it's poorly organized in general. I mean the information is fine, but its organization into sections has problems. Topics that should be in one section are frequently split between several sections, and the section names make it hard to decide what should go where. The first two sections are named "Overview" and "State" for example. What goes in a section named "State" in an article about communist states? Everything could theoretically belong there. "Analysis" isn't very specific either: Analysis of what? Analysis of the communist government structure? Analysis of the end of this system and its replacement? Analysis of some detail about communist states, like (as a random example) the kinds of propaganda they produced? Comparative analysis of communist states and other types of states? Any of these, and many other topics, could theoretically count as an "analysis". The section name isn't very descriptive, and several other sections have the same problem. So I think you may be right about the need for a "Legacy" section, but also in general a lot of things should probably be reorganized, with better section names. - Small colossal (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The entire article is an "analysis" after all. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Nicaragua

They just became communist. Shouldn't they be added to the map? 2601:541:E01:7430:197B:37CD:3704:BBF6 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

No, Nicaragua did not. Yue🌙 08:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

yes they did 2601:541:E01:7430:3181:ECD7:AC85:ACAE (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Communist state

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Communist state's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "The Soviet Union Has an Administered, Not a Planned, Economy, 1985":

• From Authoritarian socialism: Wilhelm, John Howard (1985). "The Soviet Union Has an Administered, Not a Planned, Economy". Soviet Studies. 37 (1): 118–130. doi:10.1080/09668138508411571.
• From Communism: Wilhelm, John Howard (1985). "The Soviet Union Has an Administered, Not a Planned, Economy". Soviet Studies. 37 (1): 118–30. doi:10.1080/09668138508411571.

Reference named "Chomsky 1986":

• From Criticism of communist party rule: Chomsky, Noam (Spring/Summer 1986). "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism." Our Generation. Retrieved 10 June 2020 – via Chomsky.info.
• From Authoritarian socialism: Chomsky, Noam (1986). "The Soviet Union Versus Socialism". Our Generation (Spring/Summer). Retrieved 29 January 2020.

Reference named "Ellman 2007":

• From Communism: Ellman (2007), p. 22: "In the USSR in the late 1980s the system was normally referred to as the 'administrative-command' economy. What was fundamental to this system was not the plan but the role of administrative hierarchies at all levels of decision making; the absence of control over decision making by the population ... ."
• From Authoritarian socialism: Ellman, Michael (2007). "The Rise and Fall of Socialist Planning". In Estrin, Saul; Kołodko, Grzegorz W.; Uvalić, Milica (eds.). Transition and Beyond: Essays in Honour of Mario Nuti. New York City: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 22. ISBN 9780230546974. In the USSR in the late 1980s the system was normally referred to as the 'administrative-command' economy. What was fundamental to this system was not the plan but the role of administrative hierarchies at all levels of decision making; the absence of control over decision making by the population [...].

Reference named "Ghodsee & Sehon 2018":

• From Marxism–Leninism: Ghodsee, Kristen R.; Sehon, Scott (22 March 2018). Dresser, Sam (ed.). "The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance". Aeon. Archived from the original on 8 October 2021. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
• From Criticism of communist party rule: Ghodsee, Kristen; Sehon, Scott; Dresser, Sam, eds. (22 March 2018). "The merits of taking an anti-anti-communism stance". Aeon. Archived from the original on 1 April 2022. Retrieved 12 August 2021.

Reference named "State Capitalism in the Soviet Union, 2001":

• From Authoritarian socialism: Howard, M. C.; King, J. E. (2001). "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union" Archived 2019-07-28 at the Wayback Machine. History of Economics Review. 34 (1): 110–126. doi:10.1080/10370196.2001.11733360.
• From Criticism of communist party rule: Howard, M. C.; King J. E. King (2001). "'State Capitalism' in the Soviet Union". History of Economics Review. 34 (1): 110–126. doi:10.1080/10370196.2001.11733360.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Reversal of Moxys arbitrary 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. 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)

Sorry, but I have made only one "minor" edit and am not interested. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

TO DO

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)
• "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)

  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)

• "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)

  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)

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)

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

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)