Talk:Socialist state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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) 

Radical change[edit]

@Fyunck(click): 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)

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)

Huge change on the concept of Socialist state[edit]

I'm not sure I care exactly what terms should be used to describe a socialist state, but in reading the version added today it sounds completely different than what was written before. With this big of a change I think heavy discussion is warranted first. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): ... and important, as you see in the last section, I'm planning to write a section (and an article) called "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state"... This will ensure that the article discusses the same things as the former version. --TIAYN (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this amount of change requires more input than just you. It reads so differently than what it was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I promise you, I really do, that it will feature the same topics, and discuss the same topics. I promise you—the lead is still not closed to finished, and as you see from the text, neither is the article. --TIAYN (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Then it should be written as a draft, for everyone to comment on "BEFORE" it is inserted in the longstanding article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): In my defence, this article is already better than the previous versions... its more in depth, and its actually referenced (not by primary sources, but from third party sources).. Therefore its a win.. Secondly, it seems you've reverting before asking what the changes are, and what is identical. This article is way more informative. --TIAYN (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Good luck to you but I 100% disagree with this implementation. Even the first sentence has a different meaning now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): To that, I'll say thanks! If you have any specific comments please share them. --TIAYN (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but with all the red links, with all the changes of meanings, with you not following standard wiki procedures of when you are reverted for a change you don't change it back, I'm too disgusted to even look at it anymore. I'm very disappointed with your edit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): You are speaking in extremely vague terms, and still failing to write what the difference actually is. --TIAYN (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): Since you're failing to be cooperative, and constructive, and have a proper discussion. You still havn't said anything other than vague stuff.. I'll show the similarities (italics words show identical meaning)
  • 1 Original A socialist state, socialist republic or socialist country (sometimes workers' state or workers' republic) is a sovereign state constitutionally dedicated to the establishment of socialism.
  • 1 Newest It deals with states that define themselves either as a socialist state or as a state led by a governing Marxist–Leninist party in their constitutions. For this reason alone, these states are often called communist states.
  • 2 Original "The term "Communist state" is often used in the West in reference to single-party socialist states governed by parties adhering to a variant of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism despite these states officially referring to themselves as "socialist states" in the process of building socialism and do not describe themselves as "communist" or as having achieved communism."
  • 2 Newest "It deals with states that define themselves either as a socialist state or as a state led by a governing Marxist–Leninist party in their constitutions. For this reason alone, these states are often called communist states."
  • 3 Original A socialist state is to be distinguished from a multi-party liberal democracy governed by a self-described socialist party, where the state is not constitutionally bound to the construction of socialism. In such cases, the political system and machinery of government is not specifically structured to pursue the development of socialism.
  • 3 newest "This article does not deal with countries with constitutional references to socialism and countries ruled by long-standing socialist movements (such as Venezuela for instance)."
I can continue, but this just proves that you are wrong. The only difference is that the current lead makes the differences clearer, and is much shorter. --TIAYN (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): You should also note that Maoism is Marxism–Leninism adapted to Chinese circumstances, so stating "socialist states governed by parties adhering to a variant of Marxism-Leninism or Maoism " is superfluous.
Again, if you can point to anything specific then I will gladly change it.. But you are talking in generalities. This feels like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. --TIAYN (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I've also reintroduced 3 of the old references... Currently only one part of the old lead is missing... This one
The concept of a socialist state is closely related to "state socialism", the political view that a socialist system can be established through the use of state action or government policies. As such, the concept of a socialist state is usually advocated by Leninists and Marxist–Leninists, but rejected as being either unnecessary or counterproductive by some classical Marxists, libertarian socialists and political thinkers who view the modern state as a byproduct of capitalism which would have no function in a socialist system and as a result cannot be used to construct socialism.[4]

I will be reintroducing it after I write "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" and maybe "Criticism of socialist states" (is it needed)? The former articles mentions those things very generally, but never goes into detail.. So I want to read way more on those topics before I write something stupid. It will be reintroduced. --TIAYN (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge communist state into socialist state [cancelled discussion for now][edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the merge request was: Merge discussion cancelled by author. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge communist state -> socialist state

Reasons.. See the current version of the socialist state article here. It clarifies what the term "socialist state" actually mean—yes, its a term with clear and concise ideological meaning. I want to merge for the following reasons:

  1. Sweden is not a socialist state, and neither is Venezuela or Nepal... Nepal and Sweden are liberal democracies. Sweden is a constitutional monarchy with a capitalist economy. It doesn't call itself a socialist state nor do Swedes in general.. Nepal is governed by communist parties that are democratically elected. The state is however not socialist—the institutions of the state are very much liberal and steeped in liberal institutions found elsewhere in the West. Venezuela is an illiberal democracy that is descending towards dictatorship.... Very much so, but the state isn't socialist and neither is the economy.
  2. The term "Socialist state" were used, and has been used, in more or less every socialist state governed by a Marxist–Leninist party. Even more so, Soviet law even formally defines what "socialist state" legally means.
  3. There have been many theories about how the socialist state will and should look like, but there has only been one model of socialist state—the one conceived by the Soviets... The social democratic movement has never established a socialist state or a socialist society. They have, however, instituted the welfare state—very cool, but not the same.
  4. The old socialist state article was a muddle. It failed to define a clearly definable concept.
  5. The term and concept "socialist state" is in 99% of cases, in scholarly sources, used in connection with the Marxist–Leninist countries.
  6. Countries such as Egypt and Syria called themselves socialist states.. and the Soviet Union in turn called them national-democratic states.. These states instituted more or less the socialist state system in their own countries. Again, there are more similarities here than differences.
  7. The constitutions of Bangladesh, Guyana, India, Nepal and Portugal don't call themselves socialist states.... they say, very clearly, that the state seeks to develop into a socialist society... This is likely because (a) the socialist parties were strong earlier and (b) its hard to amend a constitution so the right-wingers are not able to remove them.... However, none of these states are socialist states and what they mean by socialist or socialism is anyones guess.
  8. Tanzania was a Marxist–Leninist inspired state.... It has been ruled by the same party since independence, and that party has no interest in losing power.
  9. Sri Lanka has socialist in its name, and has a pledge that the state shall establish a socialist society. Its also not a socialist state.
  10. Now lets look at the similarities.. Only socialist states (what this article refers to as communist states) use the term "socialist state".. No socialist state was finished constructing socialism. China is in the primary stage of socialism and the Soviet Union was constructing developed socialism.. Yes, the end goal was and still is communism, but these are small differences
  11. If you look at List of socialist states, only two non-Marxist–Leninist parties use the term "socialist state". Egypt, heavily influenced by Gamal Abdel Nasser (who instituted more-or-less the Soviet system in Egypt) and Tanzania (a former Marxist–Leninist state in which the Marxist–Leninist party never lost power).
  12. What are the differences? Westerners and non-communist use the term communist state and socialist state interchangeably... No ruling communist party, communist or the states themselves called themselves communist states—they called themselves socialist states
  13. .... The commmunist state article even admits that these two terms mean the same thing "The term "Communist state" is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries. However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism—they refer to themselves as socialist states or workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism" ............ Note, even the sources the communist state and the socialist state article uses to source this are the same.
There exists no good arguments for having two separate articles on the same topic... The concept/article socialist state is not more broad than communist state. Since it literally means the same thing, it is the same thing... There might be alternative conception of the socialist state (or what socialism should be), but as far as I know, there has only been one socialist system—the one instituted by the Soviets, the system which still lives on in China, Laos, VIetnam, Cuba and North Korea. --TIAYN (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The current version of the socialist state article has over 100 references.. All references are third-party sources. All sources are produced by Western scholars (more-or-less). Therefore, the quality of that article and the referencing should be clear. That article, due to its referencing, is more reliable than this article.

Also note that a socialist state is different from the idea of establishing socialism. To some this might sound obvious. However, many movements (of all shades) have sought to establish socialism (as in the socialist mode of production, a socialist way of life or a socialist society—what usually connects these are that socialism is a vague and not a defined term)... The social democratic movements as well as libertarian socialist currents are of this kind. Wikipedia should create an article about this.... However, a "socialist state" is specifically an idea conceived of, and formulated, by the Soviet Marxist–Leninists... Very important that people understand the difference. Note, by redirecting communist state to socialist state Wikipedia is not denying that other conceptions of socialism does exist, however, the term and concept of "socialist state" was conceived by Marxist–Leninists. Establishing socialism or creating a socialist society are not synonymous with the concept of "socialist state".. They are however related, since they are usually influenced by the Marxist concept of the socialist mode of production (socialism).. Not everything is, however. For instance, Ba'athist socialism seeks to establish a Ba'athist state with a socialist society. And Libya under Gaddafi sought to establish an Islamic socialist state—again, very different altogether (the concept of "Islamic socialist state", as enunciated by Gaddafi, deserves its own article.) The same goes with Iraq's self-description "Arab State and the build-up of the socialist system" which does not mean "socialist state"... It means the Arab state, and that the Arab state should have a socialist system—the Arab state is not a socialist state, its the Arab world unified into one Arab state.

What I'm saying is this, the article is not about the socialism practised by the Marxist–Leninist per se. It is about the concept of socialist state (the term socialist state was conceived and developed by the Soviets), the theories and institutions needed and the role of the state in between the transition from socialism to communism. The concept of "socialist state" was meant to answer that question. This is why 16 out of the 18 constitutions that mentions the term "socialist state" in their constitutions were Marxist–Leninist. Tanzania was a formerly Marxist–Leninist state, and has kept "socialist state" in their constitution. Egypt is the exception (one exception).... The other states uses the terminology "socialist society", "socialist principles", "socialism", "socialism-oriented federal democratic republican state", "socialist republic" and "socialist system"...... It is important to note here that socialist state DOES NOT MEAN / IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with the following terms and concept socialist republic, socialist country, socialist principles, socialist society or socialism.. The Marxist–Leninist states did not use the term / very seldomely used "socialist republic" and never "socialist country". These are different concepts... Socialism and socialist state are not synonymous.

An article, with a proper title, should be written about the alternative conception of socialism (or the very least) socialism (as used in the broadest sense) by liberal democratic movements.. The socialism of other political movements, such as Arab nationalism and Ba'athism, deserve their own article. They theorised and tried to establish another system of socialism, and did not call their states "socialist states".

At last, the old version was not able to clarify what reform sought. Bernstein did not seek to establish a "socialist state", and neither did Kautsky and the others.. He sought to establish "socialism". Again, per WP policy, we are not suppose to interpret sources. What is clear here is that Bernstein never called for the establishment of a "socialist state" — he called for the establishment of socialism. Established socialism can mean many things; it can mean developed socialism of the Soviets, the primary stage of socialism of the Chinese, the revolutionary democracy of the Ethiopians or the national democratic revolution of the African National Congress.

In the previous discussions people have crossed hairs. Don't cross hairs. Socialist state is not synonymous with "establishing socialism", "establishing a socialist society", socialist society, socialist republic or any other kind of socialist + word or word + socialist. Socialist state, as I said previously, was a term conceived and developed by the Soviet Marxist–Leninists. By merging communist state and socialist state one is not saying that alternative conception of socialism to the Soviet model does not exist; we are merging two identical articles, too then make spaces for the "Arab state with a socialist system" / "Ba'athist state", the liberal-democratic states with constitutional goals to establish socialism, "Islamic socialist state" and other separate and distinct terms.

I am currently working on the following article: Socialism in liberal democratic constitutions. --TIAYN (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  • As nominator, merge into socialist states. --TIAYN (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose for the same reasons as the discussion from three years ago, and revert the article to this revision, before the nominator unilaterally decided to completely change this article from the general topic of socialist states to a narrow evaluation of only the oligarchic nominal "socialism" practiced by Marxist-Leninist regimes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I have not in any way changed the topic... Ivanvector, I am writing as we speak a section titled "Alternative conceptions of the socialist state" which will include information on social democratic positions, anti-Leninist / anti-Stalininst positions, libertarian socialist traditions and other currents.... In addition, can you prove that other movements use the term "socialist state" and can you disprove the fact that "socialist state" is in most instances used in relation to the Marxist–Leninist state? --TIAYN (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION While other socialist currents often talk of socialism and the need to establish socialism, the term "socialist state" was conceived by Marxists and have been used by Marxist–Leninsts.. For instance, neither Marx or Engels used the term "socialist state", and neither did Lenin before the taking power (at least not much).. The term itself was also very rarily used by Bernstein, Kautsky and other Marxist / social democratic thinkers / thinkers of the left. This goes to show, that while we can have an article about a "socialist country" or "establishing socialism", "Socialist state" is a distinct concept of them... Presumably you @Ivanvector: are mixing socialist state with the concept of Socialism (Marxism)—which everyone seeks to establish (not everyone seeks to establish a socialist state). --TIAYN (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - oppose and agree with editor Ivanvector that it should be reverted back to this revision before the massive changes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV tag[edit]

I have restored the POV tag because it seems the article is being overly selective in its sources giving undue weight to critics and far to little weight to proponents of socialist states. Dentren | Talk 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dentren: Good criticism! :) Can you specifically tell me what you consider as bias? ... And as far as I know I haven't written any criticism (or have scholars who are critics)... However, you said it. So please give me some specific examples so that I can fix it! :) --TIAYN (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I re-read the article and found it not biased in the way i first thought. However I find that much of the article takes the viewpoint of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. For example:
The state in Marxist–Leninist thought is a repressive institution led by a ruling class.[6] This class dominates the state, and expresses its will through it.[6] By formulating law, the ruling class uses the state to oppress other classes, and forming a class dictatorship.[6]
1)While in highly theoretical circles this may be the case, I pretty sure the Soviet Union did not describe itself in an everyday manner as an "oppressive institution". We need nuances here.
2) Then the article does not take into account non-Marxist-Leninist views of what a socialist state would be.
3) Can we have the points of view of contemporary proponents of "socialist states" incorporated to the text? I find there is very much a historicist view here.
Over-all I find however the article good. Dentren | Talk 03:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
1) Good point. The state was repressive, but the socialist state is democratic since its the class dictatorship of the majority of the people—as they said.
2) Like Trotskyist and liberals? I'm working on it :) The problem here is that "socialist state" is a communist term which social democrats never really used. They talked about socialism and not a "socialist state".
3) In that I agree! :) ... I'm thinking of buying Where the Party Rules: The Rank and File of China's Communist State. I hope I find some good stuff there :)
@Dentren: If its fine I'll ping you when I've fixed at least 1) so I can remove the banner. 2) is a working project, but I'm planning to add a Trotskyist section by todat or tommorow.. 3) is important. The problem really is that, after the USSR collapsed, people "forgot" that China was a socialist state. China didn't really scream it out either, until Xi Jinping came. It has gotten very much attention recently so I hope more people will write about this in the coming years. China's political system is unique so we therefore need more works that detail what the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban and Lao think! --TIAYN (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 1) Fixed. Added a subsection to "Socialist state" entitled "Democracy" and clarified in the new subsection "State".
  • 2) I'm working on adding more on socialist state... but as I said before, "establishing socialism" is not the same as "establishing a socialist state". Socialist state is a term and theoretical conceived by the Leninist (others have used it, especially before the 1917 revolution), but after that it was and has been developed by Marxist–Leninists... Because they have been the only movement which have been able to establish socialist states.... I reading some Trotskyist text and other socialist literature—to be precise, these don't know what a socialist state is, they do however know what its not. Criticism that is. You will see a small section by the end of today / early tomorrow :)
  • 3) Not done.
If you feel 1) to be sufficiently solved I hope you will consider removing the banner :) --TIAYN (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. Albeit the article is still improvable, I tend to agree now after aquick look there no flawed POV here. Said this I will keep a watch on the page since I know these topics attract politically motivated folk. –Dentren | Talk 05:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

@Fyunck(click): The article didn't have 18 red links, but 7. I've reduced it now to 5. If you want me to reduce to 0 I can do that as well... However, if you ask me, its good to have red links... Users then see articles that are missing, and needs to be created. That is good, not bad.... As for collaborative behaviour, you are showing none of it..
I've already created a bunch of articles, and made hundreds of edits.. and I've promised you that this article will take into account everything that was mentioned in the previous version.. Show some faith—that would be proof of collaborative behaviour. I'll add a section on Trotskyism and liberal socialism by today / tomorrow to the article. --TIAYN (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Then our monitors are different in displaying red links. There are 9 in the "Articles and journal entries" alone! And I have no faith in an editor who has broken so many standard Wikipedia rules and protocol. Yes, you've gotten away with them so far... good for you, but that means I can't trust you to not do it more here and in other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I haven't broken any rules. I improved the article. Instead of working with me, you're pressing you're POV on this article. You don't seem to care that 106 references from secondary sources speak against you.. You only care about yourself and you're view.
Grow up. If you want to help improve the article I'm always ready to collaborate. If you don't want to do it fine, but don't sulk. I, unlike you, am willing to compromise and turn this into a good article! :) --TIAYN (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Right, multiple rules have been shattered, things you've been blocked for twice this month already and 5x in 5 years. So don't act so righteous and collaborative. Trust has to be earned and I can't trust you. Plus you seem to have taken ownership of the article in not even allowing editors to be informed of red links that they might be able to help with. So do your thing and good luck to you in staying out of administrative eyes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I was not the only editor to revert that banner! I do collaborate, just see the section above. He gave me constructive criticism and trying to improve the article as he wrote. He actually told me what was wrong, and what needed to be fixed. And I'm implementing his changes... You haven't been able to say one clear thing other then 1) this is POV 2) this is not factually accurate and 3) you are impossible to work with... You never even tried to work with me....
I don't own this article, and I've tried several times to involve you in this article.. But instead of acknowledging the fact that this is not my POV (this is proven by the references) you refuse to even talk to me. You talk about trust—the way you behave is pathetic. I don't trust you, but I still try to work with you.
I am allowing other editors to be informed about the red links... They can read, can't they? They can scroll up and down the article, can't they? What in gods name are you talking about? You are in fact forcing me to remove red links, with youre banner, which makes it impossible for other editors to find them!
What is this? Are you saying I'm a bad editor? That I've not contributed to the community (or produced good articles)? Yes, I'm tempered and I rarely give up, however, this black-and-white view of yours is extremely simplistic. If you don't want collaborate, fine, but that is your decision. I gave you every chance to collaborate. Every! --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Stop the pinging! Yes, you are a bad editor as far as following wikipedia protocol. Very Bad in fact. It appears you are trying to take control of many articles on this topic... some of which you have been blocked. I'll let those in the political projects deal with it from now on. The red links, pov and forced acceptance is not worth my time. It sure looks like the topic has found a match made in heaven in you. Again good luck to you. 19:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)
@Fyunck(click): I have not been blocked from editing any articles....--TIAYN (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
More pinging? Move along with you the articles you own. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Socialist state[edit]

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.

@Pedro8790: Wikipedia policy is to write what the sources say. For instance, a search in Google will only give you Marxist–Leninist states ... 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)

Please see WP:UNDUE --TIAYN (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • A quick search on Google Books show that all the hits are on the Marxist–Leninist states (communist states)
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)

Incomplete list and definition of "Marxist-Leninist"[edit]

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)