Category talk:Communist states

Oxymoron
The term "communist state" is an oxymoron, and comes from Cold War era mangling of terms. — Oxyaena Harass  11:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. 12:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * More obtuse prescriptivism from Oxyaena--Hastur! (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok so no, this is a common usage term used by the world to refer to certain countries. From Wikipedia:

"A communist state, also known as Marxist–Leninist state, is a state that is administered and governed by a single communist party guided by Marxism–Leninism. Marxism–Leninism was the state ideology of the Soviet Union, the Comintern after Bolshevization and the communist states within the Comecon, the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact. Marxism–Leninism remains the ideology of several communist states around the world and the official ideology of the ruling parties of China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam."

So obviously it applies, it's common usage. As Wikipedia further explains:

"As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists and media to refer to these countries and distinguish them from other socialist states."

literally everyone uses the term except for some communists (whose opinion is irrelevant to the matter) that use a variety of obscure terms. 13:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * How is our opinion irrelevant to the matter? None of those countries called themselves a communist state, instead they brand themselves as being transitional states to communism,, , . — Oxyaena Harass  14:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * it's a term used by people who aren't communists to refer to communist states (whatever you call them). It's not intended to accurately reflect communist ideology as presented by communists, it's merely a widespread and universally used descriptive term. 14:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So you mean ignorant liberals? OK. — Oxyaena Harass  14:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ok. 14:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxyaena, do you understand what I'm talking about when I refer to linguistic descriptivism and prescriptivism?--Hastur! (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, like the situation with AAVE. But my concerns reflect genuine ideological differences, not just mere semantics. Note that the USSR never called itself a "communist state," just a transitional state that would lead to communism. — Oxyaena Harass  14:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These are commonly called communist states and fit in with common usage of the word communist. That's just the way language works, there really isn't any arguing against it.--Hastur! (talk)  14:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I very much doubt these attitudes would be the same if it were Social Democracy or democratic forms of governance that we were debating. Is Marx-Leninism Communist? Nominally yes, it is a form of authoritarian communism. However, it deviates heavily from the actual idea of of communism (A stateless, classless, money-less society wherein the workers control the means of of production governed by the principle of of "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs"), clear criteria for a successful communist state. Thusly, I think we should understand the actual criteria by which something may be used, and unlike not go with the most common usage, as that tends to be heavily watered down (abstracted definition of evolution anyone?) and not representative of the actual classifications.  14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The criteria is simple, almost everyone, including all relevant political scientists, refer to these states as "communist states" because they are states which are run by people with the stated aim of achieving communism. Its not complicated. Then we refer to them as communist states because they all do. Again straightforward. The definition of communism or what exactly these states call themselves is completely irrelevant. 14:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I never made the argument that what these states call themselves is relevant. That would just be silly. See the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" as an example. My argument was that the common definition is equally irrelevant, and that the academic definition and classification is what matters. 14:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) what the USSR called itself is about as relevant as Hitler calling himself a national socialist. which is to say completely irrelevant. This is as I stated a term used by the rest of the world to refer to the communist states (whatever you call them), it's not a self description. 14:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Academic use
Historian Timothy Snyder, in "Poland's Communists Aren't, Really":

What it suggests here is that there is a distinction to be made: Communism as a political label and communism as a political ideology, those two not necessarily coinciding, which is what Snyder points to. Academic historians therefore mostly use communist as a label rather than an ideological descriptor. This is how it is, you may or may not agree with it. 15:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ergo, the same way there is Liberalism (capitalized, in reference to the US Democratic Party) and liberalism (ideology). Also, since there was an implication of hypocrisy by GC; if there were self-proclaimed "Social Democratic" states, I wouldn't object to it either. There just happens to be none. But, there are nominally socially democratic parties like and  which do not advocate social democratic policies . So, no, the hypocrisy does not stick on me nor Z.  15:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I formally retract my accusations and apologize. 15:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also probably agree with Snyder's definition, as cited here. Such distinctions do occur due to theory vs practice after all, and as I said, I care about the academic classifications and definitions. 15:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, so I guess this is the consensus? Communism (label) ≠ communism (ideology)  18:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)