Talk:South Yemen

Dispute in progress as to how the type of Government in the country infobox should be described. Options discussed above, in order of their use are:

1. "Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state" (previous consensus-supported version)
2. "People's Democracy" (first revised version)
3. "People's Democratic Republic" (second revised version)
4. "Socialist state" (third revised version)
5. "Marxist Leninist state" (fourth revised version)

JamesBay (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because it implies it was an actual socialist state. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It was the consensus-backed, secondary source-supported term for South Yemen's government and the government of every single other article on a Soviet-style Communist state prior to August 15. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Support best to maintain the status quo here, like the other Communist bloc nations this one's ruling party self-identified as such, which should be factored in. The debate within the socialist community as to whether Communist nations were socialist is not NPOV, historically the socialist appellation has stood the test of time with a broad consensus. I doubt I would get very far editing the United States article to identify as a plutocracy, Wikipedia is no place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... Roberticus talk 01:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(changing my vote) Roberticus talk 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. For reasons stated in previous discussion – "Marxist–Leninist" refers to the ideology, not the type of government, and "single-party" goes without saying. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For reasons stated below. --TIAYN (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Too wordy and ideologically tendentious... Carrite (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose meaningless propaganda term. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Non-NPOV term based in Marxist political theory. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A democracy is by definition of the people, so "democracy" alone makes more sense. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose meaningless propaganda term. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Non-NPOV term based in Marxist political theory. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This was not the form of government had by South Yemen. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose implies that it is socialist, even though reliable sources give proof to the notability of the debate within socialism about whether these states were actually socialist or not, and takes the POV of one socialist tendency (Marxism-Leninism, a term for Stalinism; check article to see why) Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Also has no scholarly definition other than used to mean "Marxist-Leninist state" or "state self-described as socialist". 20:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Does not adequately describe the system of government. There have been numerous governments that have described themselves as "socialist", yet for the sake of objectivity and accuracy, it is essential to describe exactly *what kind* of socialist state they were. Including the official state ideology (Marxism-Leninism) and the party system (single-party) are the only established means of doing so. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While the controversy may still be raging, this term socialist state most adequately describes the actual "type of government" that South Yemen formed based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is the actual form of government; it doesn't matter if doesn't sound enlighthening, it is. Since its the form of government. The ideollogy of the state does not belong in the infobox where the infoboxs asks for form of government. This is ismple. --TIAYN (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Vague and uninformative. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)][reply]
• Support a brief scan of some sources shows wide use in many different types of publications. It seems general use. Over the other options (I know it's not brilliant but a google count shows Option 1:10 results mostly wikipedia, 2:231 results, 3:284 results, 4:400 results, 5:52 results, no analysis was performed to see how many were describing the government). SPACKlick (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We cannot say it was socialist when there is dispute and probably most experts would disagree. TFD (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Four Deuces: Most experts would disagree with you, since communist state is mostly a Western term... --TIAYN (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They call it a (capital-"C") "Communist" state. We don't throw out books published by Oxford and Harvard and use books published in Moscow when writing about Communism, just as we do not throw out books written by scientists when writing about intelligent design or global warming. TFD (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Oxford, Cambridge, Havard and all the major universities use socialist state, no one uses Communist state TFD. Ideology in a Socialist State (published by Cambridge), the book Market, State, and Community: Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism (published by Oxford) uses socialist state and the renowned book on Deng, Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China (published by Harvard) uses socialist state. No major Western publication uses Communist state. Stop living in you're own "fantasy" of what you feel is right! --TIAYN (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide a source saying that "there is consensus among scholars that the Eastern countries were socialists states," otherwise you are just conducting original research. And yes sources do use the term "Communist state",[5] and in fact the term used to refer to those states post-Communism is "post-Communist state." TFD (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: The fact is, I have a source which says "Communist state" is a Western term, you have implied that a non-Western term means sources from socialist state. Non-Western means the rest of the world. I am the one with the source, you're the one missing one. --TIAYN (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your source says, "Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring...." Certainly Western journalists use the term, and nothing in policy says that Western journalists are not reliable sources. I notice that David Ramsay Steele provides no sources for this observation. It strikes of cherry-picking that you would pick a book called From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. TFD (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Since South Yemen was a supported satellite of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), we might also consider calling this former nation a "socialist republic"? Either that or "socialist state" is acceptable to me. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 08:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Implies first that it was socialist (which is, as described above, highly debatable) and a republic (which is manifestly untrue, if we assume "republic" to mean "democratic", which is usually how the term is used). Rwenonah (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that many people see little or no difference between the two terms; however there are some very important disparate points between them. There are two articles on the subjects, republic and democracy, so no reason to expound on those disparities here. A very good friend once told me, "When people learn to read and write with understanding they automatically become republicans." – Paine  18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Which still ignores the fact that there is extensive dispute over whether these states were in fact socialist, and we shouldn't use the term in the infobox as if it were an undisputed, unarguable fact, which is what said use implies. Yemen's situation and form of governance was, additionally, totally different to the "socialist republics" of the actual Soviet Union (e.g. Belarus) and we shouldn't be using the term to refer to Yemen as if it were the same.There is an important distinction between the USSR's "socialist republics" and the "people's republics" of the wider communist world that we cannot and should not ignore. Rwenonah (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwenonah: Socialist state/republic implies its form of government, if the states were ideologically socialist is another question. There are just as many out there who claims that none of these states practiced communism either.. The Leninist system is most commonly referred to as the Socialist political system of these system. To not call these states republic is nonsense - were I come from, where we have a constitutional monarchy, republic only means a system without a monarch. That republic is synonymous with democracy is even opposed here, with pro-Monarchists claiming the present framework is more, not less, democratic... Rwenonah, in practice there is no difference in the political system between a people's republic or of those socialist republics which made up the USSR - they were organized on the same political lines. The political system of the USSR was forced upon them by the USSR, and remained identical.. While the operation of the system has changed in China, the institutions remains the same. There is a reason for that. There is no better term (and none more correct) then socialist state/republic - communist state is a generalization, and people think by stating communist state it implies less communism. Communism is a socialist ideology - it may have been implemented by assholes, but the ideology was still socialist, so by calling the state Communist state/republic doesn't make it sound less socialistic. Communist state/republic is a generalization of socialist state/republic, and generalizing the nature of the term does not contribute to the encyclopaedia. --TIAYN (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As TFD has pointed out above, the fact that South Yemen or other nominally socialist states were in fact socialist is highly debatable. By placing it in the infobox, we offer none of this dispute and present it as an unfettered and unmitigated fact; something that is directly untrue (one of many flaws with infoboxes, in my opinion). There is no reason to refer to it as "socialist" when this is debated and less controversial terms are available. There is significant difference between a "socialist republic" of the USSR and the wider communist states; they may have been organized on the same political lines, but to treat them as synonymous is making a huge mistake. All of the SSR's were subordinate to the central government, which governed from and essentially for Russia. Kazakhstan, Belarus, etc. were ruled directly by the Soviet central government. Yugoslavia, Albania, etc (the other Warsaw Pact members) were ruled by single individual rulers, who had varying degrees of autonomy and allowed varying degrees of freedom (like Golmuka or Tito). Even more autonomous were states like South Yemen, Egypt or Vietnam, which may have paid lip service to the Soviet Union, but were in fact highly separate and only play along so long as they received aid to achieve their own goals. Calling them "socialist republic" on the above basis that they were governed the same as the Soviet Union's subsidiary units is making a false generalization. There is also a large difference between communism and socialism; if we are going to be specific with regard to ideology, we should say "Marxist-Leninist" or at the very least "communist". Why use a debatable umbrella term when we can use a specific and less debated term? Rwenonah (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwenonah: All those states were governed the same, with the exception of Egypt. China, the USSR, Vietnam had a Central Committee, they had a Secretariat, they had a Politburo, they had a unitary National Assembly, they did not a president until the 1980s-90s (they only had heads of parliament), the trade unions were nationalized and so on. You are talking about something very different; the United Kingdom and Norway are both constitutional monarchies, but they are ruled in different ways, it doesn't mean that we should stop using the term constitutional monarchy in their respective infoboxes does it? And to say that these states were not socialist is WP:FRINGE. The most notable theory that the USSR is not socialist, the trotskyist rationale, admit that the state has socialist tendencies, socialist political systems and so on, but that they are deformed/degenerated since true powers were never given to the working classes. However, even Trotsky admitted that Stalin's USSR was socialist, just not socialist in the "correct" way. As he admitted there were socialist features there, a vanguard party, a planned economy in which all was nationalized and so on.. Again, the debate about the ideology of the state has nothing to do with what we are discussing; the form of government of the state. Trotsky even admits to this; there is a difference between ideology and the nature of the state. --TIAYN (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Even Trotsky admits" is not a valid argument. Trotsky was a leader of the Russian Revolution who like the others thought they had created a socialist state. While Trotsky thought the Soviet Union was still socialist, some of his followers, such as Shachtman, thought it no longer was. Socialists outside the Marxist-Leninist tradition never accepted it as socialist, nor did liberal observers. So what you call fringe is in fact the mainstream.

Regarding the term "republic", it merely means it is not a formal monarchy. So people are de jure citizens of the nation rather than subjects of the crown. It is most apparently in the wording of laws, treaties and state actions. So in the UK, prosecutions take the form "The Queen vs. John Doe", while in the U.S., they take the form "The U.S. vs. John Doe." When writing about Latin American countries, we do not say they cease to be republics when they become dictatorships, we say they cease to be democracies.

TFD (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we are once again confusing an "ideology" with a "type/form of government". Clearly, it is not incorrect to say that South Yemen was a Marxist–Leninist state, because that was the ideology that fueled the state; however, it very much is incorrect to say that South Yemen's form of government was a Marxist–Leninist state. That is a bit like telling people that you own an Exxon car, or an Amoco pickup truck.

"Communist state" is also incorrect and plain wrong on several levels; it is a biased, Western term that carries negative connotations for many, many people, and while all that may or may not be relevant, what does have relevancy is the fact that whether one writes "Communist state" or "communist state", one does not refer to a government type in any way, shape or form of the phrase. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Nor did "liberal observers"? Are you kidding me, the vast majority on the streets believe the Soviet Union was a socialist state. Trotsky was not a Marxist-Leninist, sometimes even hard to define him as a Leninist since he opposed Lenin on some of the very basics. I find it humerous that Shachtman is cited by you as a reliable opinion, but not Trotsky, who actually established the movement he became a member of. Socialists outside the Marxist-Leninists tradition did accept that the Soviet Union were socialists; you never heard the UK Labour Party, the Norwegian Labour Party, Sinn Fein, (the lists goes on and on and on) denounce the Soviet Union as unsocialist, they however, like the Trotskyist, denounced dictatorial and unsocialist tendencies. Criticizing some parts is not the same as claiming the whole fabric is nonsocialist. Agree with Ellsworth above. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shachtman is as reliable a source for what Shachtman thought as Trotsky was for what Trotsky thought. The point is that the two men were not unanimous on whether the country was socialists. Not interested in arguing semantics about the meaning of Marxism-Leninism - Trotsky was a leader of the Russian Revolution and thought there was something salvageable. But socialists typically saw the Soviet Union as state capitalist or even a regression back to tsarism. The U.K. Labour Party leader, Arthur Henderson, said it lacked an essential attribute of socialism, democracy. Mao considered it social imperialist, maintaining only a facade of socialism. While you are probably right that most Communists and Trotskyists thought it was socialist, some did not. There is no reason to use a self-description rejected by most mainstream sources. We can only call a country socialist if there is a consensus in mainstream writing.

Why anyway would socialists who opposed Communism claim that the Soviet Union had achieved the goal they desired for their own countries?

TFD (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Again, a bad argument.. WHy, please tell me why we are discussing ideology. Mao himself admitted that the USSR had a socialist system (and that China had it too), but that the system could be taken over by non-socialist (as in the case of the USSR), but the system was still socialist. China had a socialist political system in place in China, but he initiated the Cultural Revolution for amongst other reason to ensure that non-socialist tendencies did not take control over the socialist political system, eg. creating a facade. However, very important, as you yourself answered, this facade was a form of government; it was the socialist state. Mao admitted that a socialist political system could co-exist with none socialist rule, literally that non-socialists could head a socialist political system. The argument that some socialists accuse the USSR of not being socialist it totally uninteresting, since thats not what we're supposed to discuss. What we're supposed to discuss is what form of government fits in the government_type parameter. The arguement that communist state with a capital "C" is better because it sounds better, feel better, is not logical at all, since you're not answering the question, what form of government South Yemen has. The fact that you still don't understand that there is a difference between a term often used to describe a state, and the form of government given to institutions organized in a specific way, kills this discussion at the get off. Its a reason why I tried closing this discussion down because people don't seem to understand the difference between the two, and if they do, they sure as hell don't care about it. What does the USSR being socialist or not ideologically have to do with the fact that the system Lenin conceived is most often referred to then not as the "Socialist political system", "Leninist system" and so on. But Leninist doesn't work since some of the states have moved from the original prescription of Lenin to something entirely different, such as North Korea and its Monolithic Ideological System under the Great Leader or Ceaușescu's Romania which displayed similar characteristics to North Korea by the end of the 1980s. Leninist at the top any longer in the 1980s.

To the point, why are you talking about ideology? The ideology the state espouses and the system of governance which has been called socialist by everyone from Western commentators to the communists themselves to this day are two very different things. I'm interested in the form of government. By the end of the day, what the UK Labour Party or what Mao thinks about the USSR's ideological stance is totally uninteresting. And my the end of the day, you're continuing a discussion which doesn't make sense. All socialists agree that Communism is a socialist ideology, it doesn't matter if you ask Mao or certain figures in the UK Labour Party. By stating the country is a Communist state you are not making the state seem less socialist, since communism is a socialist ideology. As the old saying goes "All communists are socialists, not all socialists are communists". Communist state is a generalization of the term socialist; as you may remember communism as a term first became popular around the 1920s. When Lenin and co established the socialist Russia they established a socialist system (and the World in turn called them a socialist state); communism is a relatively new construct which became used prominently to differ the socialists in the USSR from the social democratic movement (remember that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's first name was the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party). It was a term, which was of coursed used before Lenin and co, used to denote a political movement. A communist state can be a member of the political movement, but there cannot according be a communist state if you are to be clear (if the goal is too not generalize). The point of any encyclopaedia is to be succinct, which means by definition no generalization were possible.--TIAYN (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Reasons already stated elsewhere, plus "republic" requires elected representatives through democracy. Zozs (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zozs and The Four Deuces: A republic requires elected representative through elections. That these elections need to be free and fair is an entirely other point. To call it a state doesn't make sense, since a republic is a state formation, a monarchy is a state formation and so on. The only theory which favours the term "State" over "Republic" over other forms of descriptions is Marxism since according to Marxist methodology the state is made up of the leading representatives of the class it represents (which are the leading class is decided by the type of economic system the country has). Therefore if the state is a republic or a monarchy doesn't matter to Marxists as much as what class interests that State represents. In short, use republic.

• Support only reliably sourced, neutral and perfectly accurate term; reliable sources also explicitly say that "Marxist-Leninist state" denotes a form of government (The Poverty of Communism. Nicholas Eberstadt. Page 2.) Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it could also be named "Marxist-Leninist single-party state". Zozs (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Marxist-Leninist state:

• The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: A-E. Cathal J. Nolan. 2002. "Aden was later absorbed by the Marxist-Leninist state of South Yemen."
• Being Arab. Samir Kassir, 2013. "the future South Yemen, which became a Marxist-Leninist state in 1968"
• The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power. Daniel Yergin. 2012. "Aden disappeared into the harsh Marxist-Leninist state of South Yemen."
• The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. Odd Arne Westad. 2005. "the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY) - the only Marxist-Leninist state in the Middle East" Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that not one of these sources actually points to the form of government as "Marxist–Leninist"; they all refer the ideology of the state, not the government type. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know that they're referring the ideology of the state instead of the government type? Reliable sources say that the term "Marxist-Leninist state" indicates a government type (see for instance The Poverty of Communism. Nicholas Eberstadt. Page 2.). Zozs (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not the authors think they refer to a type of government, they distinctly refer to the ideology of the state based upon the definition of Marxism–Leninism – an "ideology", not a form of government. For the nth time, a type of government may be based on an ideology; however, the ideology itself is merely the impetus behind whatever form that a government may take, such as a socialist state. Your single source, which you claim goes against what is described in those two articles is unavailable to me and would require corroboration with other sources that also specifically claim Marxism–Leninism is a form of government, which by definition, it is not. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • By definition, the authors are referring to what they think they're referring to. You're just going off your personal opinion. You aren't a reliable source. Zozs (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nor have I ever claimed to be a WP:RS, Zozs. I have linked to the appropriate articles that have all the correct definitions and reliable sources you should need. If that's not enough for you, then hopefully it's enough for the objective contributors in this discussion. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • To editor Zozs: To combine one sources use of Marxist Leninist with another sources definition of Marxist Leninist would be pure synthesis and violate policy. I'm not objecting to the use of the term just way sources are being combined.SPACKlick (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll explain it with a simple analogy. Four sources say that a certain spoon, is indeed, a spoon. But then somebody comes and says: "Despite the fact that these sources are calling the object a spoon, they don't actually mean that the object is actually a spoon, they just mean that it shares an attribute with spoons, in that the object's color is gray, just like spoons". So another source is brought in, which explains that the term "spoon" refers to whether the item in question is a spoon or not, not to its colors. Understand? Zozs (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't accept that the analogy is analogous. We have a disagreement over whether something is an adjective, "state which has the properties of marxist-leninism" or a category label "state which is a Marxist-Leninist State". A Conservative State or Conservative Government are not types of state/government, it's adjectives describing the ideologies of the governments. Do you have any quotes that would indicate the above sources are not using Marxist-Leninist in that sense? All that being said, I intended to ping To editor Paine Ellsworth: not you, for which I apologise (I combined two of your posts into one when reading), because they were using dictionary synth..
            • With the core key here being that the state refers to the form of state organization, yet the government refers to who's in charge. There's no such thing as a "conservative state". There is such a thing as an Islamic state. It doesn't refer to the people in charge being Muslims, it refers to a form of state organization in which Sharia is upheld as law, which encompasses several states which hold several things in common. In the same way "Marxist-Leninist state" does not refer to the people in charge being Marxist-Leninists, it refers to a certain type of command economy, etc. Here I'm going off reliable sources (well documented in relevant Wikipedia articles), this person I'm arguing with is going off his personal opinion. Zozs (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Zozs: No I'm not, and alas, the form of government of a state has nothing to do with the economic system of that given government. You are, again, blending two different concept into one. If the article had asked for "economic_system =" the answer would have been planned economy, but it asks for "government_type =" and last time I checked government_type has nothing to do with what sort of economic system the government uses :p ... The interesting thing here is that you're even admitting that you're not interesting in the form of government, but rather the states orientation; "There is such a thing as an Islamic state. It doesn't refer to the people in charge being Muslims, it refers to a form of state organization in which Sharia is upheld as law, which encompasses several states which hold several things in common. In the same way "Marxist-Leninist state" does not refer to the people in charge being Marxist-Leninists, it refers to a certain type of command economy, etc.". It asks for form of government, its very simple Zozs. --TIAYN (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with the qualification as a *single-party* state. I would consider this an acceptable, and not inaccurate, compromise. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Reasons already stated – this term describes the ideology of the state, not the type of government formed by the state. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose << REDACTED – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! >> NO PERSONAL ATTACKS --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with a proviso: "single-party Marxist-Leninist state" would work. Single-party is the political form, M-L the ideological basis. "Socialist" applies to such a wide variety of countries, ranging from Scandinavia to North Korea, that is strikes me as more confusing than enlightening. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: It asks for the political system, not the ideology of the state Carrite. If it had asked about the state's ideology it would be parameter state_ideology = Marxism-Leninism, but it asks about the form of government. Those are two very different things. At last, no one argues that there exists a socialist political system in Scandinavia (I never heard anyone say that, and neither have you). --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look at Cuba, and that was called "single party socialist republic." North Korea is called "single party socialist state." Either of those would work for me... Carrite (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Single party" is a given and does not need to be mentioned. Do you know of any socialist or communist regime that has more than one party? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Above. --TIAYN (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "Communist" is a better-known synonym for "Marxist-Leninist." TFD (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Consistent with use at North Korea. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not socialist, reasons already given, meaningless term, only scholarly use of "socialist state" is either synonymous of Marxist-Leninist state or self-described socialist state Zozs (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I oppose only the "single-party" phrase. Calling a socialist state a "single-party socialist state" is like describing species arctos as a "two-eyed grizzly" – both "two-eyed" and "single-party" are superfluous givens. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For reasons stated above. --TIAYN (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. (1) Communist state (to which Marxist-Leninist state redirects) "is a Western term for a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party system by a party which claims to follow communism, usually with a professed allegiance to Marxism-Leninism as the guiding ideology of the state." This ticks all the boxes and, since it has a Wikipedia article, it must be deemed to be a thing that actually exists. (2) It is commonly used to describe the state – see Google Books. (3) The article is in Category:Communist states. --Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, socialist more commonly used. --TIAYN (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, that's a meaningless oxymoron, used by right-wing propagandists, which only serves to confuse people. Zozs (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Scolaire, I was thinking the same thing, did not have the time nor wherewithal to construct alternate proposal & rationale... Roberticus talk 23:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pretty universally accepted term for all states with this form of political system. Accurate and succinct to boot. JamesBay (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It is the least biased and most descriptive term. TFD (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Four Deuces: But alas there you have it, its a term, not the form of government. --TIAYN (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Scolaire, Roberticus, JamesBay, and The Four Deuces: The article on communist state says ""Communist state" is a Western term for a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party system by a party which claims to follow communism, usually with a professed allegiance to Marxism-Leninism as the guiding ideology of the state." .. This can't fit the bill, its even breaching NPOV. Note that the article on socialist state says "The term socialist state (or socialist republic) usually refers to any state that is constitutionally dedicated to the construction of a socialist society" - that fits the bill. --TIAYN (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is a term that describes a form of govermnent, as is "socialist state" btw. And your Wikipedia definition of socialist state is unsourced and wrong. The socialist states claimed that they were socialist societies. they were dedicated to the construction of a communist society (which of course would be stateless.) I did not realize you do not believe that they ever achieved socialism. And being a "Western term" does not in itself breach NPOV, since NPOV is not about providing parity to Western and Eastern views. Since "socialist state" is an Eastern term, it would have the same POV problems. TFD (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @The Four Deuces: I don't care if they ever achieved socialism, the socialist states themselves didn't believe they had reached socialism, and therefore established a form of government they called people's democratic republic (hence the name People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of Korea, People's Republic of China and so on) - you see, big difference. Socialist state is both used by Western sources and authors/officials from the former and remaining socialist states, communist state is just a Western term. I don't care if the states themselves believed they had reached socialism or not, but the form of government they created, the Leninist political system, is referred to by the socialist states themselves as socialist, and more importantly, by Western writers as socialist. The socialist states, however, never called their system a communist form of government. Socialist is used by both Western and socialist sources, communist only by Western sources. It should be clear, from you're own argument, what you should vote for. --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They claimed that they had achieved socialism, which is why they used names such as the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". If you think they meant anything else then please provide a source. And while some Western writers use their self-descriptive term, you need to show that any of them, other than Marxist-Leninsts, ever claimed that these states were socialist. And no one claims that they were "communist" societies, but that they were ruled by big-"C" Communists who wrote their constitutions according to their Communist ideology. TFD (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Yes the Soviet Union reached, or claimed, to have reached socialism under Stalin, but it was Soviet policy not to give the same status to the other European states (another example of Soviet imperialism), and states which were clearly not ready to develop socialist societies (according to any reinterpretation of Marxism)... Countries which broke away from the USSR usually called themselves pure socialists after, for instance, Romania which was turned from a People's Republic to a Socialist Republic in the 1960s, China which officially declared it has reached socialism under Mao (of course, the present-day CPC has backtracked the best way the could, without actually criticizing Mao, and now say they've reached the primary stage of socialism - but China still call their system the people's democratic dictatorship) or North Korea which stopped calling themselves a people's republic, but still has it in its formal name. For instance, South Yemen was a self-declared people's democracy, but South Yemen alongside Somalia were labelled socialist-oriented states by the USSR itself.. Sources for people's democracy, see User:Trust Is All You Need/Sandbox2#References. I don't care if a society was socialist or not, what is clear is that they had a socialist system. The socialist system is clearly definable; a one-party state based upon democratic centralism in which state authority has no checks and balances and all state powers come from the legislative assembly (the head of the assembly as you may know was usually the general secretary or leading POlitburo member...) - of course, in this instance, that "ordinary" members of the legislative assembly didn't have any real power doesn't mean anything, in theory thats how socialist states were and are organized (of course, some of these countries introduced the office of President, but in theory, the presidency is always responsible to the legislative assembly).--TIAYN (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you draw a distinction between "socialist" and "socialist-oriented" states. All the more reason to ditch the confusing terminology and just called them "Communist states", i.e., states set up by Communists. TFD (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Nope I don't, since socialist-oriented states were not form of governments according to Soviet theory :p ... My point is simple, you refuted yourself. You said socialist states were only used by the communists, which is clearly wrong. Communist state, however, is only used by Western opinion. Socialist state is commonly used, and even more so, and if we are to generalize socialist states is the correct one. If we are to go in depth, then of course South Yemen should be categorized as a "People's democratic republic"... But since the mood here seems to favour generalization, the most correct term would be "Socialist republic/state". Communist state is just a generalization of the term socialist state. --TIAYN (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the term "socialist state" was only used by "communists", just that only Marxist-Leninists considered them to be socialist or "socialist-oriented" or whatever. In the same sense, writers on "conservatism" in the United States may begin by saying that they are really the right-wing of U.S. liberalism and since they do not support the conservation of medieval institutions, they are misnamed, then refer to them as conservatives throughout their books. It would be tendentious to infer from that they really believed they were conservatives. TFD (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: By the same token it would be unacceptable to call China, Cuba, Hungary, Vietnam, Laos or North Korea communist state. Yes, we support the abolishment of private property, but we support the creation and utilization of the market economy (China, Cuba, Hungary, Vietnam and Laos). Or North Korea, we support the abolishment of feudal ownership (which according to North Korean textbooks in the 1960s also ment hereditary rule by family; breach Kim family) and we support collective rule of the party and state so as to make the most rational decisions (breach, Great leader principle,.. Literally, you can fine holes in everything, but that doesn't make them less socialist (or for that matter, less conservatives).. If it was a general accepted view that the conservatives were the right-wing liberals the WP article should say they were the right-wing liberals, since its the general accepted view amongst scholars. Its not like many have not tried; in Latin America several right-wing parties call themselves the Social Democratic Party, and the Swedish Moderate Party, the second largest party in that country, calls themselves "the only [real LAbour Party"], which it clearly isn't. If, however, this had been accepted by the scholarly community (or share popular opinion), the Moderate Party should have been described as the "only" labour party. Socialist should be used instead of communist since its also accepted by scholars... My point is simple; WP writes what the scholars say, not what we as editors "feel" is correct. If we're talking about feel we should label all dictatorships simply as dictatorships because it feels right, and it certainly does to me (but sadly, dictatorship is neither a form of government, and even if it was, it doesn't clearly distinguish forms of dictatorships from eachother). --TIAYN (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting we call them "communist states", which they were not, but that we call them "Communist states". As Sara Diamond writes, "I use uppercase "C" Communism to refer to actually existing governments and movements and lowercase "c" communism to refer to the varied movements and political currents organized around the ideal of a classless society." (Roads to Dominion, p. 8)[6] (See sources the distinction to a book by Joel Kovel.) And I have just explained there is no consensus that these states were actually socialist, but there is consensus they were run by Communist parties, by definition in fact. Re: your Moderate Party example. Your sources no doubt refer to them as "the Moderates." They do not describe their ideology as moderation, it is conservatism, nor are they "the moderates" - presumably there are other "moderate" parties. TFD (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deucues: Its a WP:FRINGE view that the USSR and the Eastern Bloc nations were not socialist.--TIAYN (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Socialist parties in Western Europe for example never saw the Soviet Union as socialist. The Labour Party, the SDP in Germany, the Social Democrats in Sweden for example never promised to make their countries another Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: At last, communist state is not a form of government. You using communist state with a capital C or not doesn't change that fact. Those parties never said the USSR was not socialist, they talked about establishing a different form of socialism, just as the Chinese are doing, just as Alexander Dubček wanted to do and what Mikhail Gorbachev tried to do. Socialism doesn't mean the Soviet Union. But more clearly, none of those parties you mentioned tried to establish a unique socialist political system, they were more then happy existing within the parameters of a liberal democracy. None of those parties tried to establish their own unique Socialist political system; I'm talking about the SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM, wether the governments were truly socialist or not doesn't matter. A government can both be non-socialist and have a Socialist political system as set up by Lenin, there is no controversy here. This is like saying everyone within the liberal democratic framework have to support liberal democracy, which not everyone does, just look at Venezuela or Ethiopia. --TIAYN (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It is incorrect to refer to a form of government as a "communist state". Technically, communist societies are "stateless", so this Western-originating term is an oxymoron. See Communist state#Objections to use of term. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As explained. "Communist: is big "C". It does not mean that the countries had achieved small "c" "communism", merely that they were governed by big "C" "Communist" parties. They actually called themselves "Communists" - it was not something made up by anti-Communists. TFD (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not an encyclopedic argument to use the term as a "form of government" at all. Zozs (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read your argument on that, and my first thought if I am to be honest was that it cannot possibly hold water. One could use the same argument for practically all these choices, even "marxist–leninist", so since this phrase does not describe the government type of what was South Yemen, then I am still opposed to it, nor do I agree that it is the least biased, most descriptive phrase. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Every serious history on the subject of I've seen refers to such nations as "Communist states", regardless of semantical debate. Also, it's more succinct and accurate. Rwenonah (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]