Talk:Socialist state

message: British protectorate, and any others, are certain to be outnumbered in a certain position. By the order of law and the British protectorate, Somalia is a socialist state. Idk what a socialist state is, but Somalia was one in 1970, ya.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:649:100:D18E:5D0B:4422:CECF:B584 (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalia 

message: Its not a radical change. Its literally a tone of sources—and text which is fully referenced—that explains what a socialist state is. To somehow say that an unreferenced article is better than a referenced article is contrary to WP rules. --TIAYN (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And this non-consensus article that multiple editors have said should be reverted back, still has 14 red links!!!! Of course no one realizes it because the tag keeps getting removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical change

message: Very easy. Socialist state is what most scholars define it has. Most scholars define socialist state as Marxist-Leninist state. Alas, there are 2-3 exception to this rule. There are only two countries that have defined themselves as socialist state in their constitution and that are not Marxist–Leninist. Gaddafi's Islamic Socialist Libya defined their state as a jamahiriya state. Egypt's Arab socialist state (it introduced the socialist system more or less, Tanzania did the same) should be discussed in the Constitution of Egypt (or another place). The same goes with Tanzania. There are two exceptions, and these exceptions should have their own article.
As one sees here, no country (with the exception of Tanzania) considers itself a socialist state (even if has references to it in the constitution) Socialism in liberal democratic constitutions. There are other examples, such as Sudan, which writes in its constitution; "Preamble: "In the belief of our pursuit of freedom, socialism and democracy to achieve the society of sufficiency, justice and equality" .... This preamble doesn't call Sudan a socialist state.. People would also know that Gaafar Nimeiry was an Arab nationalist first and Arab socialism second.. He sought, similar to Syria, Egypt and Iraq, to establish an Arab state (that is, a unified Arab state).
The Marxist–Leninist movement is the only communist current that has managed to establish a socialist state, and the only socialist movement to have establish a socialist state in more than one country (the others are Libya's "jamahiriya state", Egypt's Arab socialism (Nasser talked about scientific socialism) and Tanzania's African socialism (the last two greatly influenced by Marxism–Leninism) . Other variants of socialism, such as reformism or libertarian socialism, speak about the establishment of socialism–it should be noted that establishing socialism is not the same as establishing a socialist state. Movements such as trotskyism have tried to establish socialist states, but have failed. However, this hasn't stopped other socialist movements criticising the Marxist–Leninist conception of the socialist state (or the idea of a socialist state).[6] The "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" section will try to summarise these arguements.
 Wikipedia policy is to write what the sources say. For instance, a search in Google will only give you Marxist–Leninist states https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22socialist+state%22 ... Secondly, as I've proven to you over. With the exception of two counts, all the worlds socialist states, historically and current, are Marxist–Leninist... Hopefully, in the future, a good socialist movement will create better ones. --TIAYN (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:UNDUE --TIAYN (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

text: * A quick search on Google Books show that all the hits are on the Marxist–Leninist states (communist states)
* The same goes with Google scholar
* A search on Jstor every hit goes leads to Marxist-Leninist states, with the exception of a couple of hits for "National Socialist state" and one non-Marxist–Leninist article from 1909 on the "Socialist state"
* A search on Google gives strange hits on the first page (3 for WP, one for Quora, a definition, an amazon and pro and anti-socialist propaganda).. However,from page 2 onwards nearly every link is about the Marxist–Leninist socialist state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is important to keep in mind that a "socialist state" is not the same thing as socialism (a socialist economic system) and the two concepts can exist independently of each other. I think lots of confusion arises from the assumption that a socialist state implies a socialism and vice versa. As far as I am aware, and based on the usage of the term by most scholars, the whole idea of a socialist state (using this specific terminology) is a Marxist-Leninist idea so this should be the major focus of this article. -Battlecry 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialist state

message: The distinction between M-L and supposedly non M-L constitution is at the very least implemented poorly here, and at most could never be wholly done. In addition to this, the list is in no way complete.
Prabhanda Thought would be considered by Nepalis as Marxist-Leninist just as Chinese people consider Mao Zedong Thought to be Marxist-Leninist in nature. This is owing to the root of these theories in Marxist and Leninist ideology.
Further to this, Juche can then also be considered Marxist-Leninist on the basis of it's root in this doctrine. Certainly it's advocates will say as much.
Does Algeria and Tanzania now fit this definition too? Arab Socialism is built on the foundations of Marxism-Leninism and specifically was influenced by the Soviet Union, arguably the first Marxist-Leninist state being the one Vladimir Lenin thrust into existence and indeed governed. Ujaama is based on Scientific Marxism with further influence by the Soviet Union, albeit less than Arab Socialism.
Does Syria not even get a mention in either column? The state considers itself Arab Socialist, is governed by an Arab Socialist party and has as one of it's ideological aims to build Socialism In One Nation. How far any of the other states have gone to stick to their constitution is just as debatable as with Syria yet has not warranted exclusion. Market reforms have entered every state on this list, all to varying degrees, some more than Syria.
How about Yemen? Rojava? Mozambique? Zambia? Angola? Zimbabwe? Belarus? Transnistria?
2A02:C7F:60A:A100:10FC:4B93:2AE0:2AF4 (talk) 10:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete list and definition of "Marxist-Leninist" 

message: Venezuela is a socialist state Leo7u7 (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezuela remains to be added to the list of socialist states. 

message: According article on wikipedia about North Korea, governmet is Unitary Jucheist one-party socialist republic under a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship, so why is not on the list of current socialist states? They even still have a centrally planned economy, so together with Cuba they are more socialist than China, Vietnam and Laos. Dr. Ivan Kučera (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea 

message: Isn't a communist state & a socialist state, basically the same thing? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Communist states tends to refer to themselves as "socialist states", rather than "communist states", although they don't deny that they are intended to develop, eventually, into the perfection of communism.  They ignore the fact that almost every state in Europe is, to one extent or another, socialist in aspect -- although not communistic.  Even the US has socialist aspects, although they are much, much less prominent than in European countries -- and Americans in general (especially those on the right) regularly conflate socialism and communism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @GoodDay, @Beyond My Ken: This is getting off-topic, we have articles on all these things, please read at least their lead sections. No present European countries are "socialist", let alone the United States. They are social democratic welfare states at best (Nordic model) based on an economic model fully adhering and upholding capitalism. Governments adhering to the ideological current of communism have existed and still exist, states governed by these governments are sometimes referred to as "communist states", but no "communist" state has ever existed in the original meaning of "communism", which is why all former and present communist governments have ever declared their countries as "socialist" and not "communist" (correct me if you are aware of any exceptions). Let's get back to the case of North Korea in this talk section, discuss this elsewhere if you want. -Vipz (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Social welfare programs are, by definition, socialistic. (And BTW, I have absolutely no objection to them because of that, but that is the fact.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Socialistic" concessions within a capitalist system do not make countries "socialist". What are trying to argue here: They ignore the fact that almost every state in Europe is, to one extent or another, socialist in aspect? That we should add literally every capitalist country in the world with some kind of social welfare to this list? If not, then this discussion doesn't need to go any further. -Vipz (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Clearly, to some people, North Korea's Juche ideology is not pure enough to qualify as Marxist-Leninist, and they wish to exclude them from the club because of it.  More neutral observers -- those not concerned with the purity of Marxism-Leninism -- will look at Juche and see the obvious Marxist-Leninist core of the ideology, layered over with Korean-specific elements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

text: This discussion is extremely pertinent to the subject here, please do not attempt to hide it again.  Any additional collapsing will be reverted, and continually doing so will provoke a report to admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but me trying to encase (in an expanded state, so it wasn't hiding) a discussion that was going off-topic (discussions of whether social welfare and modern European countries are "socialist", whether "socialist" and "communist" are exchangeable, etc.) not related to whether North Korea is ML - was done once, in good faith, so please don't act so aggressively, WP:BOOMERANG exists. -Vipz (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So does WP:NPOV, something you should keep in mind as you edit articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

text: @Holidayruin: Fallacious argument and not helpful in this discussion at all. You'd argue that Democratic People's Republic of Korea = democratic too? Or that "National Socialism" = socialism? Wikipedia reports reality, not what parties call themselves. -Vipz (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  This discussion was started based on Kim Jong-il saying he wasn't Marxist-Leninist? Holidayruin (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Holidayruin: Nope, it is based on a variety of sources both asserting and disputing that modern-day Juche is ML. Axonov provided quality arguments in the section above which I suggest you to go dispute: outcome of this discussion is not based on "opposes" and "supports" but consensus and strength of arguments. Your argument certainly isn't. -Vipz (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialism, communism and juche 

message: Hi
This article is very confused. A socialist state is a purported stage a communist state reaches when the state's ruling class is the dictatorship of the proletariat (or a variant thereof]] and established socialist property relations. That's it! Trotsky did not have a different theory of the socialist state, but he claimed that the Soviet socialist state had deformed. I have never read a work of Trotsky in which he redefines that meaning.
That Lenin created the "vanguard party" has nothing to do with a socialist state. The term "socialist state" does not mean "form of government" or "political system". It means the base (socialist property relations) and superstructure (class system). That's it!
Why does this article lits, in the lead, liberal democratic with constitutional references to socialism in the lead and then later in the lead say "A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democracy governed by a self-described socialist party"? Its confusing to the readers! TheUzbek (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the following
**"Constitutional references to socialism" — the lead clearly states that these states are not socialist states, hence no reason to have it in the article
**"Other uses" — this section refers to "socialism" and not "socialist state", hence a different topic
**"Terminology" — the term socialist state denotes base and superstructural relations that communists claim to have developed, and this is about what?! 
**"Reform and revolution" — It does not mention the term "Socialist state" and is about reformism vs revolutionism. But this article is not about that subject!
**Trotskyist theory of the state" — Leon Trotsky never had an alternative theory of the socialist state. He had, however, a theory that explained Stalinism: the Degenerated workers' state. Not the same thing again!
**"Criticism within left-wing movements" — moved to Communist state since it is not about theories criticising base and superstructural relations, but about how existing communist states sucked.
*** I moved this to "Communist state" and greatly shortened it... Why? Most of it is sourced from primary sources; WP is about secondary sources.
--TheUzbek (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused article