Talk:Communist state

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

San Marino was a communist state from 1945-1957 under the Sammarinese Communist Party. Currently in the "Previous communist states" section, San Marino is not present. Polskaball.420 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The section you're talking about is within the Template:History of Communist Nations, not a part of this article. Edits to the template should be done on the template itself, not here on the article where it's just transcluded . Additionally, I question whether this actually made San Marino a communist state, or just a state with a communist (or to be precise, a communist/socialist coalition) government. Liu1126 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Bavarian Soviet Republic not on the map of Communist states

The short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic had an extreme-left government of short duration that showed obvious imitation of the nascent Soviet state, but is not shown on the world map of "Communist states". Its motto was Karl Marx' Workers of the World, Unite! Pbrower2a (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

These were very short-lived and internationally unrecognized List of socialist states § Ephemeral socialist states and polities. I don't think they warrant inclusion on the map of communist states. –Vipz (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Did it have a constitution specifically implying that it followed Marxism-Leninism? I would assume not, given that it existed solely in 1919. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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)