Talk:List of socialist states

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Definition

I agree this is a rather useless page and misleading! And where is Venezuela, didnt Chavez recently proclaimed 'socialism or death.' Also, what does Sweden or Germany proclaim to be these days?

I am seriously considering proposing this article for deletion. If it was a list of Communist states, I could see its usefulness. However, a list of socialist countries - where a "socialist country" is defined as any country that calls itself socialist - is as useful as a list of countries whose name ends in -stan. There is no point in creating a list of countries whose only common feature is a label or name. -- Nikodemos 03:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These countries actually are socialist. It's not simply a name. The factors of production in these economies are controlled by the state. When governments decide to call themselves socialist, they do so for good reason.

While I support keeping this list, it is an error to assume that all of these countries had even a majority of their economic apparatus under state control. Many maintained a large degree of private enterprise, especially after the state socialist economy tanked during extended conflict (as in Mozambique or Nicaragua). —Sesel 20:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sesel, why do you support keeping this list? -- Nikodemos 04:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping the list is important, but it's absolutely important that we narrow the definition. I think the distinction between Marxist-Leninist and non-Marxist-Leninist is a good start. I've produced a map from the list and I'll post it here shortly, which includes the Marxist-Leninist, single-party "Communist" socialist states in red, and non-Marxist-Leninist, "Communist" socialist states in light-red. I've excluded social-democratic states like Denmark, etc., and I believe they should be kept from the list (perhaps a list of those should be made, separately?) to reduce confusion (so endemic in the discussion of communist and socialist states). Word. Zanturaeon 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy is a different phenomenon. We can speak of social democratic governments, but I've never heard of a state that has social democracy as a legally defined ideology. —Sesel 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's something that I had inferred. I'm pretty sure "democratic-socialism" isn't considered a "legally defined ideology", but I mentioned it because it is an openly socialist movement, and it's ultimate goal is communism (sharing character with communism, syndicalism, and anarchism), it's only difference is that it believes in multi-party bourgeoise democracy. That is to say, its goals are the same but the general strategy is different. Also, under your (very awesome) map additions, I changed the seconds' subtext slightly, changing "communism" to socialism, as per actual meanings despite common mis-use. Word. Zanturaeon 09:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Sesel, I saw your revision of the map I made the other day. The map I made was based entirely off the Wikipedia list (for consistency). What inspired the (slight) differences? For example, you removed Paraguay but added Chile and Guyana. Why? Cheers. Zanturaeon 10:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay was never listed, and I removed several that do not match the map's caption as "single-party states". The Socialist Republic of Chile was very short-lived and Guyana maintained a formal multiparty system despite electoral corruption. —Sesel 22:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only way we could ever be able to keep this list NPOV is to insist on a strictly de jure interpretation of "socialism": A country is socialist if its constitution calls itself "socialist". I think the above discussion proves that the "single-party state" label is fuzzy enough to cause problems. Instead, we should have a map of Marxist-Leninist states, a map of non-ML states, and, of course, a map of both. -- Nikodemos 00:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from "Communist states"

I have changed the redirect on Communist states from here to communist state. If someone is looking up communist states, they are most likely to want to know what a communist state is. This article is listed under See Also, so if someone wanted a list they could easily find it. If this is a problem for anyone, you can consider putting the following disambiguation link at the top of the Communist state article.

{{otheruses4|communist states|a list of such states|List of socialist countries}} which translates to:

This article is about communist states. For a list of such states, see List of socialist countries.

Cheers JenLouise 04:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would add that likely, all present and former colonys of europe would have a form of socialism.. Tiny Belize for example is socialist but were overly encouraged to sell off what was socialist created before independance. In this case i still call belize a socialist country as its law and its currency are from the United Kingdom.Catweasel 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first claim is incorrect, the second is incorrect and illogical. —Sesel 00:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this article

What was the person who moved this article thinking?! This is a terrible title that makes no sense. —Sesel 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC) exactly a terrible title .written by someone with no real experience of socialism or communism for that matter... 14:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or ARE YOU NOT FROM THE USA ? AS I SAID the first time ???? Americans are not taught what is socialist. Catweasel 14:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true that "Americans" are not given an accurate picture of socialism through compulsory education. However, I've studied socialist countries for years now on my own time. Attacking me just because I was born in a country with inadequate compulsory education makes no sense. What also makes no sense is claiming that all former British colonies are socialist because the United Kingdom has had Labour governments and that their laws draw mainly on British ones. By this logic, the United States is a socialist country, which of course is preposterous. —Sesel 16:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"BASED ON production for profit for the privileged few, capitalism is incapable of meeting the needs of the majority of the population worldwide.

Socialism is about planning production for need not profit. This would eliminate the contradictions of the current system which lead to global economic crisis and conflict. Socialism is about working-class people, the majority of society, owning and controlling the economy and democratically deciding how resources should be produced and allocated for the benefit of all, in an environmentally sustainable way."

 http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/TheSocialistContents2.htm?TheSocialistIssue225.htm

I am not attacking , i said you did not know. And you admitted that, by ackowledging that american education in that, is very little and as i remember , socialism was taught as one step away from communism.. Neither did i call your text illogical or making no sense as you did mine..

FYI--- For a country to be considered as part of the European union, the first two requirements have to be in place... Neither one does the usa have... No death penalty and universal health. that is socialism...Catweasel 08:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article about communist states

@Nikodemos "Communist states" is a wrong and misleading term, which has been coined by USA, and not by the socialist countries. They never proclaimed to be communist, so don't call them that way neither. If you don't know what communism is, do some research first. There is no need that you spread your propaganda here. If you want make an article about communist countries, but there never were any, so what's the point of talking about them? This is about countries, which state socialism in their constitution or proclaimed so by the government.

Since I made an article about "Socialist Countries", this article is about "Socialist Countries". Those who look for communists states should be redirected here, since what they probably meant are socialist republics, socialist federations, socialists unions, etc. Redstar1987

USSR

why is USSR not in the list?

It is. —Sesel 17:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea, A: is not Marxist and B: does not consider itself to be Marxist-Leninist anyway

Technically all constitutional references to Marxism-Leninism were replaced with Juche, so should the DPRK be listed as a Marxist-Leninist state?

Does seem to related from it though? "In its theoretical composition, the Juche Idea is a mixture of Neo-Confucianism, Soviet Stalinism, and Maoism.""But Marxist-Leninist phraseology remains in occasional use, for example, socialism and communism." That-Vela-Fella 18:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India doesn't show on the maps. India includes the word socialist in its self definition and for practical purposes is a beaureaucrat socialism (at least in economic matters).67.161.166.20 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DPRK is not Marxist-Leninist anymore, it abandoned ML and all reference to it in the constitution during the 70's I believe, and was replaced completely by Juche which is essentially a statist/militarist/fascist movement which practices nationalist autarky as opposed to interdependence - which is socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.241.185 (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is so confusing

Why doesn't this list include the socialist countries of western Europe? Instead, it's filled with communist states and dictatorships. I don't get it.--77.251.196.241 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a country is a ruled by a social democratic party doesn't mean that the country's law is structured around socialism/Marxism/etc. —Sesel (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, disputed accuracy, reliable sources

This article has zero reliable sources (and not even any unreliable ones) to support the statements made. It could be made into a very informative and factual article, but as it stands now it's based upon the interpretation of the person or people who wrote it with no supportive evidence. It also does not currently conform to WP:NPOV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Germany

I just added this which I expect to be controversial. The reasoning is

they self-described themselves as socialist and I've put them in the non-Marxist-Leninist section which seems to be there for such variants which the lede defines as under any interpretation;
they enacted socialist measures;
they changed the constitution to establish a one-party state.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The addition was reverted with no discussion.

1: No, except for the minority Strasserist current. 2: The overwhelming majority of the economy was in private hands. The state takeover of some enterprises and property was mostly done to further persecute their political enemies. They also used the word "socialist" because of the popularity of genuine left-wing parties like the SPD, KPD, and USPD. 3: Yes. So what? —Sesel (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have Sweden or Denmark on the list - or for that matter any of the numerous countries that were and are ruled by political parties calling themselves "socialist" - we should certainly not have Nazi Germany on the list either. The case for Nazi Germany to be included is about as weak as the case for the United Kingdom to be included (the UK is currently ruled by the Labour Party, which calls itself socialist).

Original research

The lede now seems absurdly ad hoc which indicates that it is being made up to fit some pre-conceived agenda rather than being based upon sources. I have added an OR tag as the article increasingly seems to be just someone's opinion.

As an example of a better treatment of much the same subject, please see Socialist International. I am coming to the view that this article should be deleted or redirected to that article. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Countries with mealy-mouthed social democrats in government are not socialist countries, and most socialist countries have had no affiliation with SI. —Sesel (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding sources while many of the various places named are already sourced at the wiki-linked areas seems to be a huge task in itself to be done. If anyone thinks it's a worthwhile task to do, then be bold & have it done here also. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

The maps are difficult to change and so hard to keep in sync with the list. I'm not sure what the general policy is but they seem especially troublesome in this case where some entries, such as Germany, may be disputed and so make the list volatile. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germany is only disputed by people who have no idea what they're talking about; that is, the far right-wing fringe. —Sesel (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]