Talk:Communist state

Animated map

Should there be an animated map, showing the various Communist states as they became Communist or non-Communist, and during the Sino-Soviet split, whether they supported the USSR, PRC, or were non-aligned? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

1979 map

Burma was a socialist state in these years and yet is not displayed on the map? Should it be added? Jacsam2 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Venezula under Chavez? Also the Left Front in West Bengal, led by Communist Party of India (Marxist) and other Indian states like Orissa and Kerela have 'Communists' ruling in coalition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.65.126 (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Moderate Liberal Viewpoint

Since when, liberalizm is "Moderate"?

Is Wikipedia a liberal propaganda aparatus? --76.31.238.174 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when? Probably since Wikipedia moved beyond right wing Americans' narrorw definition of "liberal" to mean something to be hated. Do study the meaning of the word in other places. HiLo48 (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what I said. Liberalizm is a political ideology. Wikipedia should have a neutral point of view. In a Wikipedia article it can't be stated that "liberalism is moderate" implying "all other political ideologies are extreme". This doesn't have a relationship with "liberalism is something to be hated". I'm sorry for you if you are fan-boy of a certain political ideology and are biased. This supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not your party program.

So...If we get back to the subject, using "liberalism" or "liberal" as a word meaning "moderate" is against Neutral Point of View. I suggest editing the related section.

--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your definition of liberal? HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

supporting or advocating liberalism. or related to liberalism. and this is not my definition. it is like what communist and communism is about. socialist and socialism, theocrat and theocracy...--76.31.238.174 (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, you linked to Liberalism. That tells us that Liberals support "constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion". Looks pretty mainstream and moderate to me. But let's face it. The word liberal is used by people on the right in politics in the USA as an insult for their perceived opponents in American politics. But that's an extreme usage. The word liberal has many meanings around the world. Heck, it's the name of the more right wing of the two biggest political parties here in Australia. To come closer to your perspective it's probably dangerous to use "liberal" to mean anything in particular at all in a global encyclopaedia. Maybe I would support use of another word, but not because liberal has a particular meaning. More because it doesn't. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. "liberal" maybe -once- was a generic word. But it is not anymore. As in the name of Liberal International, "libeal" means someone who advocates liberalism or something which is related to liberalism. And yes, liberalism is an ideology which is capitalist -therefore right wing-, which supports free(!) and fair(!) elections in an environment of manufactured consent, which favors a constitution prepared by capitalist class and dictated by majority, which supports human rights (especially in certain countries labeled as "Evil" such as Syria, Iran and China but not in rich countries like Saudi Arabia), which supports freedom of religion of majority beliefs (bot not for example of Alevis which are minority and poor).

And, yes, it's pretty mainstream to me too. Since majority is always ignorant, conformist, right wing, discriminative, ready to obey the powerful. So it's not a coincidence. People who support other forms of right wing ideologies (thocrats, racists, nationalists, etc.) may hate liberals. It's mainstream too. Right wing people hate everything and everyone who are not like them and what does not belong to them. For a right wing person, only his or her camp is enough "Right". Liberals are no exception. Liberals hate thocrats, racists, and nationalists. This is a pattern of right wing politics.

End, if we return to the subject, "liberal" has a meaning. It is someone who supports Liberalism or something which is related to Liberalism. Just as used in Liberal International. Therefore, it can't be used as an adjective meaning "good". At least in an encyclopedia. I don't hate liberals. I understand them. But this is not the point. for the sake of "Neutral Point of View", Wikipedists shouldn't use "liberal" as a word meaning "good", "cool", "awesome", etc.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh, was that a sarcastic rant? There's no point continuing this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a "rant". You defined liberalism with your words and I defined liberalism with my words using same parameters. What-liberalism-is is not the point here. The point is unsuitable use of the word "liberal" as a whitewasher one.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't attempt to define Liberalism at all. I did show that the link you claimed to be using said virtually the opposite of what you claimed Liberalism meant. I'll just repeat a point I made earlier which, if you had paid attention, probably suits your goal of removing it from this article - "... I would support use of another word, but not because liberal has a particular meaning. More because it doesn't." HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Therefore, the expression should be edited.--76.31.238.174 (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

North Korea

Well, North Korea has disavowed communism a while ago. Should it be removed from the list then? --Nekoceko (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I thought so too long ago, but some still want it left as is. In a way I can see as to why since what they have now still stems from the ideals from it. Currently it really shouldn't be, but historically it definitely was. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)