Talk:List of socialist states/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article seperation

These are communist countries not socialist. Socialism is not Communism. Most european countries today, and Canada are socialist.

From what i am reading here i am thinking there are many different interpitations of "socialist countries"
Perhaps this article should be broken into something like List of democratic countries with socialist governments and List of countries under socialist regimes or something like that, in order to separate countries like china from a west-European country who happened to vote in a socialist government for 3-4 years.--Hypo Mix (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a list of socialist countries, nor is it a a list of communists countries. There has never been a communist country, all recorded countries under the name of communist fall under the politically correct form of "Authoritarian Dictatorship"

"Most european countries today, and Canada are socialist"Italic text

Where on earth do you get this ignorant statement from?

Ah yes. Let me guess...

Bill O'Reilly on FOX News!

Like most Americans, you have absolutely no idea what the term "socialist" actually means. Try getting yourself a passport. Yes, that's the little blue book that allows you to travel abroad, to another country. Yes, there is another world outside of the U.S.A. you know? Go and visit other countries and then you will find that people just might actually value your opinion a little more. Until then, get back to your trailer park, pal.

"Where on earth do you get this ignorant statement from?" I think our definitions of socialism are completely different. Western Europe and Canada are actually ruled by socialist parties, as they define themselves. People in America tend to confuse socialism with communism, but it isn't the same thing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.97.187.102 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, dude. Countries like Canada and new Zealand *are* socialist democracies. (And proud of it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratinabox (talk • contribs) 18:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you smoking? Canada and New Zealand are two of the most economically free nations in the world! They are more free market than the USA is! Take your ass over to the Index of Economic Freedom page, PLEASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.12.69 (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I live in Vancouver were I own my business and I can say that Canada is very much capitalist. To suggest other wise is quite ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there is your problem right there - this idea that Socialism is a purely economic model opposed to capitalism. Socialism is the wooliest of terms, claimed by any number of party's and governments from the right and the left. Generally it involves a degree of nationalisation of industry and regulation of commerce, a substantial welfare safety net and public medical care, but in no common pattern or degree. All part of Socialism's basic meaning "caring about the people". It by no means conflicts with a free market. There have been innumerable socialist governments in western Europe - France has one right now. In fact, all European states are socialist by the US definition. Lately however, American conservatives have conciously adopted the term to describe their latest enemy. No communists left you see, so "socialists" will do. They reckon if they keep using the term, they can frighten people with it, and use it as a stick to beat their opponents with. The term was never used in America until a few years ago, and now all day every day. Its a patently obvious political policy to use it as a scare term, and distilling its myriad aspects and uses down to a coherent "communism lite" is very much p[art of the plan. Pardon the rant, my quibble is not with American conservatives, it is with the influence of primitive American political techniques on wikipedia, and thus regular folk. Cheers Batchuba (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well there is your problem right there - the idea that when "caring about the people", the action of "caring" is a perpetual motion - the thought that you can perform action of caring(verb) without any cost(for free). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.186.25 (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition

The title should be "list of communist states" although it would still have factual errors. I honestly do not understand how this page has stay up for so long. Alybunny (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

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, France, Spain, 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

China has been capitalist for 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.171.125 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

found a good definition "Socialists are spread out on a continuum from a Social Democratic centre (something like the NDP) to a Stalinist extreme on the left, and a national socialist extreme on the right (Nazi, for short). Communism and Nazism are deadly systems, but not because they’re socialist. They’re deadly because they’re extreme." from http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/25/george-jonas-we-re-all-socialists-now.aspx --Hypo Mix (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"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, France, Spain, or Germany proclaim to be these days?"

You completely wrong! Sweden, France, Spain and Germany have never been and will never be socialist countries (except East Germany), even the social-democrat parties on those countries have publicly renounced "marxism" and "scientific socialism".190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Americans have been isolated from socialism and they do not understand it. Communist countries have marxist socialism, communism is the end stage of marxism which these countries did not achieve. Democratic Socialism is nonexistent but Venezuela is moving towards it under Chavez. Though many believe Chavez is a dictator and Venezuela is no longer democratic. Social Democracy was a party of marxists and democratic socialists that split and became democratic socialism then was reformed to welfare capitalism and not socialist as it is in the modern world. Dunnbrian9 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Catweasel you have NO IDEA what socialism is.

"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."

Come on! that definition is so ambiguous is useless. I advice you to read some of Marx and Scientific Socialism to understand what socialism really is and more important HOW it pretends to achieve its goals.

"No death penalty and universal health. that is socialism..." You are so clueless its scary.190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ANC South Africa Socialist?

I'm not sure that the ANC is socialist. The ANC, according to Nelson Mandela's Book, A Long Walk To Freedom, is not communist and he makes it explicit in several places in his recount of negotiations with the then NP. According to www.anc.org "The ANC is in an alliance with the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). Each Alliance partner is an independent organisation with its own constitution, membership and programmes. The Alliance is founded on a common commitment to the objectives of the National Democratic Revolution, and the need to unite the largest possible cross-section of South Africans behind these objectives."... The SACP is the communist representation here. The ANC not... please confirm their listing.

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

"Communist states is a wrong and misleading term, which has been coined by USA"

Actually mister ignorant it was coined by Lenin. Communism is just a word for marxism-leninism which is based in "scientific socialism" by Marx so they ARE socialist countries trying to achieve communism.190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The USSR

Why is USSR not in the list?

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

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)

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)

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)

A government building in Kim Il Square (similar symbolic and political significance as Tiananmen Square used to have) has two giant paintings on it: one of Marx and one of Lenin. 58.172.80.154 (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorships and fascists are, by definition, not socialists. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing marxist socialism and democratic socialism. Marxist socialist states are dictatorships. Democratic socialist states are democratic and not dictatorships, at least in pure form. Fascism has long been debated so I will not get into that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

The parties call themselves socialist. Social democracy is based on socialism. Most of these parties belong to Socialist International. I don't see why they shouldn't be called socialist countries. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Because a socialist state is based in the marxist ideology and the "scientific socialism". And ALL the social-democrat parties have renounced marxism and socialism.

The "socialist international" is just a name out of nostalgia.190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

That it's ruled by a socialist party doesn't mean that it's a socialist country. A young communist (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"And ALL the social-democrat parties have renounced marxism and socialism." - The UK Labour party constitution, introduced under Tony Blair (no less) in 1995, states that "the Labour party is a democratic socialist party". So renouncing Marxism and renouncing socialism are not one and the same thing. But I of course agree that it would be beyond ludicrous to define multi-party western European democracies as socialist, not least because most of them have right-wing governments at the moment! Sofia9 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Western European countries are not socialist and do not claim to be. The American confusion lies with parties names in Europe. Major socialist parties have reformed to become welfare capitalism parties while keeping the same name. Dunnbrian9 (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This article lists countries that officially called themselves socialist, NOT countries ruled by parties that officially called themselves socialist. I thought the introduction made this clear enough, but I see this question coming up again and again on the talk page: "Country X is/was ruled by a party calling itself socialist, so why isn't it listed?" I am beginning to think that we need to find some way to make the country/party distinction clearer, if not in the article then at least on the talk page. Ohff (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

I find the article is just fine regarding POV. None of the countries listed are socialist, and the article notes that fact: the list includes countries that currently claim to be "socialist," even though there is no evidence showing they are. It is like cults that insist they belong to a given religion even though their behavior shows they are not. A parallel: the USA Republican Party claims to be conservative, even though their behavior shows they are not. The same is true of "socialist" countries. --Desertphile (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nazi Germany and other fascist states

Nazi Germany was very much a Socialist country, and their economic policies were Left Wing. Watch a lecture by Hans Hermann Hoppe, a German economist, and he sets the record straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainNicodemus (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.29.16 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no evidence at all that Germany's Nationalist Socialist Worker's Party (Nazis) were or are socialist. Putting them on the list would not be valid, any more than putting the USA on the list. --Desertphile (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Just because they called themselves "socialist" it doesnt mean that they are, after all none of those european parties support marxism anymore.190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I believe the only property the Nazi's expropriated were that of the Jews, the major industries etc all remained in private hands, mostly politically-connected corporations. I seriously don't want to see socialist related articles on Wiki becoming a propaganda zone for the 'fascism is left-wing!!!111' crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.27.58 (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology. The nazis never described themselves as socialists - national socialism is not socialism. Indeed, I believed they described themselves as anti-socialist - or, at least, anti-communist. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that nazism is NOT a right wing ideology but an anti-capitalist anti-communist one.190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Listen to their propaganda, and what they "strived for" if not achieved in their time. Same with Italian Fascist "Corporativism"; as much an alternative to traditional capitalism and claims itself as an heir to Socialism as Nazism had; just not of Communism; but just Socialism. Nazi Germany should at least be listed on the 'non-Marxian Socialist' countries (at some point in history). 70.59.140.179 (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How can a country that was governed for almost 2 decades by a party called "national socialist german workers party"(NSDAP), who abrogated its constitution and de facto replaced it by a nationalsocialist version NOT be a socialist country? Isn't cheesecake also cake despite there's antoher word before "cake"?

The German National Socialist dictatorship should be mentioned if this article is to be neutral.

I just want to point out that you have placed Arab nations like Libya and Iraq as 'socialist' and they had similar policies to the European fascists- they all nationalised industries for public services like water, energy, health service, public transport, the banks, the resources etc. In fact they all based the currency on the value of the commodities, not on debt. So the European fascist countries were similar to the Arab socialist countries. Mind you, Arab socialism, like Fascism, rejected Communism and embraced Nationalism!

Many countries nationalized industries for public services like water, energy, health service, public transport, etc. Not just European fascist countries, but most European democracies as well. All oil-exporting countries have nationalized oil. All countries with extensive public transport networks have some form of nationalized public transport (including the United States - it has Amtrak). Most countries have nationalized their water supply and health services. And so on. But the point is that this article does not list countries as "socialist" based on their policies. Please read the introduction. This is simply a list of countries that have called themselves "socialist" in their names or constitution. Thus, for example, Libya is listed because it called itself the "Great Socialist Libyan Arab People's Jamahiriya", not because anyone thinks that it followed socialist policies. Ohff (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

From the introduction of the article:

There are many countries that have been ruled by socialist political parties for extended periods of time without ever adopting socialism as an official ideology in their names or constitutions. Such countries are not listed here.

Therefore, since the country of Nazi Germany never declared itself socialist in its name or constitution, it is not listed here. Yes, it was ruled by a political party that had the word "socialist" in its name, but that is extremely commonplace. Nearly all countries in the world have been ruled at one time or another by parties that had the word "socialist" in their names (or used it in their self-description). If we were to include on this list all countries ruled by "socialist parties" (meaning all parties that called themselves "socialist"), the list would include most countries on Earth. It would be easier to make a list of countries that haven't ever been ruled by parties calling themselves "socialist."

It seems to me that many American readers, living in one of the few countries where the word "socialism" is not widely used in self-description by a variety of different political forces, do not understand just how widespread the use of the word "socialism" really is. Many countries have not one, but several political parties calling themselves socialist - and these different "socialist parties" often support completely different policies. Ohff (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If they were well-documented SVG files, based on File:BlankMap-World6.svg, then they could be easily updated just by opening in a text editor and changing a few words http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:BlankMap-World6.svg/Documentation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.60.30 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bogus Maps and Information

A coutry by my opinion is not communist if its constitution just says there should be equal labor. It only is communist if it is declared and carried out. This page needs SERIOUS work because a lot of the countries memtioned in the non-Marxist constitution reference are not even a bit communist.

On the other hand there are extremely well know socialist countries left off the page entirely. Namely Bolivia and Venezuela. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.50.48 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Recommendations

I recommend adding every place on the planet EXCEPT:

Hong Kong Singapore Ireland Australia United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.186.19 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you are stupid.190.47.240.138 (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop trolling everywhere with your bullshit man, you are pathetic 83.149.10.130 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

--> From 2010, following the coup by Julia Gillard, Australia has moved towards becoming a socialist republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.209.200 (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

POV on Steroids

I literally guffawed several times while subjecting myself to this article. There is no hope of "fixing" it, because its very existence is the problem. I hereby dub this rampant display of POVism "The POVinator," and will point to it when I want to demonstrate why WP:NPOV is necessary (and how it is ignored). If you don't understand why this article is a shining beacon of POV, you should should probably stop editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Communism vs. Socialism

"Definition" seems to imply that what is known as a communist state in the US is the same as a socialism? Is this true?? I was under the impression that certain Western European countries are socialisms.

-- No this is not true. Communism is a form of government, where as Socialism is a form of economy. You can have Democratic Socialist states such as Canada, or Communist Socialist states such as the USSR/Cuba. There are many current socialist countries who are not Communist. Sweden being one as well.

There are so many things wrong with the unsigned comment of 65.73.129.238. Unbelievable. This should be a list of countries who officially declare socialism and/or communism as their main ideology, guiding their country. Adding European countries, that are simply not socialist in any way is original research, we are in sore need of some citations and references in this article!--RasNehemia (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I like you very much Nehemia and I concur fully with your opinions, without engaging in vulgar talk. You know why? Because that wouldn't be allowed on Wikipedia!143.89.188.6 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This all basically calms down to where do we draw the line between communism and socialism. As of yet no country has truly followed the strict regulations that were set for both these two social systems therefore making this all subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.78.201 (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No country on earth has ever followed precisely the "regulations" set up for any social system, because social systems dont exist. only governments exist. social systems are ideas on paper, highly abstracted. they may help us to conceptualize certain problems in governance and economics, but real world governments cannot be mapped onto them. every country will have some aspects of fascism, capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy, kleptocracy, autocracy, planned economy, republicanism, as they are defined by various people. While this list is definable (countries declaring themselves some form of socialist state), since the reality of life in these countries varies so much, the purpose of this list, to somehow group these countries together descriptively, is POV and OR. just saying. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the Socialist goverments?

I saw on the List of current communist countries there is a section for countries that are ruled by communist parties (Nepal, for instance). So why there is no list of socialist governments or countries ruled by socialist parties. I know there is a list of the current ruling SI members but not all the socialists parties in the world are there (In fact there are some centre-right wing parties on it)

There is a wide variety of countries now, specially in South America and Western Europe, that have moved towards socialist reforms. Bolivia and Ecuador, for example, have approved new constitutions that include socialist references. Spain has also implemented socialists measurements. I believe we should include that list as well. Thanks. Tony0106 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

About the european parties none of them supports "marxism" or "scientific socialism" anymore so they are not socialist states.

And a communist state is just a state ruled by a marxist-leninist party which follows the marxist ideology.190.47.240.138 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

Didn't Nepal elect a communist government not so long ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.68.90 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Shouldn't Yugoslavia be included on Marxist - Leninist instead of non - Marxist Leninist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.142.21 (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Terrible article

This has to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. There are no references to support claims and a great deal of the material comes from supposition. Socialism is not defined except by referring to the wiki definition which is neither applied nor uncontroversial. Furthermore, I suspect that countries cannot be socialist in the same way that the sky cannot really be angry. Governments may be socialist however.

An article worthy of a drastic change or deletion. IMHO. --Candy (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion was tried last year, but failed. That being, some work is needed to fix many areas that still need references (aside from those that have a direct wikilink to a sourced item). Had to remove 2 states as neither had any direct reference or wording to socialism in it's constitution! That-Vela-Fella (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I could understand the usefulness of an article that researched countries in which socialist parties are currently in power. But the maps shown listing countries that have ever declared themselves socialist is absurd. How this article escaped deletion is beyond me. It has virtually no utility or meaning. 7o62x39 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)7o62x39

This article is mostly fair. I just dont believe most people knows the difference between marxist socialism by communists and democratic socialism or that social democrat parties reformed to become welfare capitalist parties. Perhaps this information should be clearer even though it is stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't countries in Western Europe listed?

Most people consider France, Finland, Switzerland, etc to be socialist countries ... yet, none are listed? Why? 72.39.210.23 (talk)

Who are those "most people" and why because there are no sources? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

France does not even have socialized military and has a free market. It cannot really even be considered socialist.Pangeanempire (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No one considers those countries to be socialist. Especially Switzerland which is accused of being far right and Finland which had a civil war in the past century were capitalists white defeated the socialist red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A socialist state is a state the defines itself as socialist in it's constitution, none of those countries have. Charles Essie (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The new AfD (actually the 3rd nom)

I found out there was a 2nd nom in Dec 2008 - about 4 people voted. Despite efforts in the Intro to define 'socialism' in terms of the list, I've put this up for another AfD. Most of my reasons are given at [[1]], but I think that having to define socialism for the purpose of this list shows that the list is non-workable. The term is used politically in the US to scare people and promote agandas, and any kind of article-specific defining will lead to exclusionism. Where are the UK and France? Why is the 'communist' definition the main one? There are many arguments against this article, and when you see List of countries by system of government it is hard to find any for it. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional info - this article is only linked to from a handful of wikipedia articles - it has not been taken up by states etc. Some of the data in this list (if any is useful for somewhere) could be better placed on socialist state or communist state perhaps (I'm not sure if they are actually good enough articles - I don't have time to rad them right now). Similar problems could occur there too, but at least the context is better - ie there is less blurring of communism/socialism. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to make some of the sub-lists into Lists of there own (should they deserve one). Problems have arisen from containing this information all together (an issue whether the title is good or bad). One way of avoiving the question "where is France? etc" is to create smaller lists for the needed info where the title is unambiguous (either as sections in a better main article, or as lists of their own). Matt Lewis (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

article name

Should this article be renamed to "List of nations self-described as socialist"? Collect (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should. This was a point raised by several participants in the AfD, and it seems there was general support for it. I'm going to be bold and move the page. Robofish (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

Let’s make a newer, better, map! Watch this left wing space!
  Over 70 years

  60 - 70 years

  50 - 60 years

  40 - 50 years

  30 - 40 years

  20 - 30 years

  10 - 20 years

  Under 10 years
Click on image to magnify.

--86.29.140.96 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody update to uppermost image to reflect the PRC's 60 year mark? I don't have time at the moment.

Star Garnet (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The two maps claim that "map of all countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under any definition, at some point in their history," and "map of all countries who declared themselves to be socialist states, under any definition, at some point in their history." but they do not match up.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

United States

The United State should be added to the list. In the constitution it says all people are created equal, outside the constitution, the US is passing Socialised health-care, it has socialised schools, roads, public utilities, etc. Also it has several Socialist parties. So it falls under socialist state in Constitution, Law, and Politics. Could it perhaps be labeled informal? Chitdorit (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No, seeing that all countries have those features.. It has also never been ruled by a left-wing party (in European standards, in American yes). --TIAYN (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the United States is now officially socialist. In the past year and a half, we have seen the nationalization of:

1 – General Motors and Chrysler were nationalized.

2 – 1/3rd of the Banks in the US have been nationalized.

3 – Several mortgage companies in the US have been nationalized.

4 – Health Care has been nationalized.

5 – Student loans have all been nationalized.

If that doesn't make the United States socialist, then what would??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.88.29.163 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with socialism, if you think that is socialism you might as well call the rest of Europe communists, seeing that they have more nationalized industry then the US. Nationalization does not mean socialism, nationalization is even common among (fewer cases however) right-wing parties, just not in your country.--TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has everything to do with it. Socialism is where "the people" own everything together, but it's basically run by the government. These items are in every respect socialist. Greater Western Europe is socialist, they just haven't officially called it that. Greater Western Europe is socialist, they just haven't officially called it that. A turd by any other name is still a turd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.88.29.163 (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nationalization is not socialism, that's two different things. --TIAYN (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Clement Attlee nationalised the British railways and coal mines, as well as being a self confessed socialist!--86.29.141.168 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes but there is many other things to which made him a socialist, nationalization is a part, but if you nationalize it does not mean that you are a socialist seeing you need to alot more to be considered a socialist. --TIAYN (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Clement Attlee nationalised the British railways" - not spelt like that, he didn't. Try Clement Attlee - one A, two Ts, one L, two Es. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bernie SandersSocialist in Senate./

Ron Dellums- Socialist formerly in congress, now mayor of Oakland./ Government controls Tennessee Valley electricity, inner-city passanger trains, airport security, large banking ( citigroup, fannie mae, freddie and several saving and loan corporations in 1980s) as well as general motors./ Social Security, Socailized Medicine, Welfare, Socialized Education, Roads/Public Unitilties, and Selective Service. Not to mention Jury of peers is socialized Justice./ The United States also has many legal Socialist Parties and Lobbys./ Finally the Constitution includes that all men are created equal and includes a jury of peers (social justice)./ I think the United States could be considered informally Socialist.Pangeanempire (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The US is not socialist. "Created equal" is not socialist. Perhaps if it were "Die equal" that claim could be made. Roads, etc are not socialist in that they are funded by democratic capitalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a blog for crazy right-wing conspiracy theories, this is an encyclopedic website. This is only a list for self-proclaimed socialist states, the United States has not proclaimed itself socialist, and that's that. Charles Essie (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

What is Socialism?

This should define the difference between Communism and Socialism.--86.29.135.94 (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The USSR

Thier Marxist-Leninist beliefs typify socialist communism! They also used 'Socialist' in thier national name!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cuba

Thier Marxist-Leninist-Castroist beliefs also typify socialist communism! They also used 'Socialist' in thier national name! most Communist states folowed the Soviet Union's verient.-- --86.29.140.96 (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Red China

It was originally a Maoist state, but the PRC ditched this deviant form of communism for Marxism-Leninism, despite using the term "people‘s republic" in there national name! The term was also used by Mongolia, East Germany, The Congo-Brazzaville and Vietnam at various points in their socialist eras.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clement Attlee

Clem, as he was known at the time, was a socialist, but not a communist. He created the British NHS system. Labour used to sing the Red Flag song and wave there red flags back then with pride and joy as the party AGM closed in Blackpool every year!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if he were spelt correctly: Clement Attlee. One A, two Ts, one L, two Es. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nepal

Nepal elected a Maoist government in 1996, which was removed in 1997 by the king, and has had one since 2008, which exiled the king. --86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please highlight Nepal in the map. Nepal has been ruled by Socialist and Communist parties since 2008.

The IRA

I believe the IRA clamed to be a ‘Socialist’ movement in the late 1970’s!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The ANC

I believe the ANC clamed to be a ‘Socialist’ movement in the 1960's and 1970’s.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder

Both Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder have both described them selves and their parties as reformed socialists from time to time in the early 2000’s.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria

Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Syria been accused of being Islamic Socialist states in the late 1970’s and most of the 1980's by various Western sources, such as the CIA, MI5 and Mossad!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, they have/had socialist constitutions! Also, I can't see what was "socialist" in Romania either, in my opinion it was far-right capitalist cleptocratic, but what these countries classify themselves as is what matters in the article. --188.113.91.110 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sweden

Sweden has been a Nordic Socialist state since the 1970's, yet it's all about a no smack policy in it's schools, environmentalism and good public transport, not nationalization or foaming at the mouth Bolsheviks as some British and American radicals have claimed in recent years!--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

India

The Indian Constitution says that India is Secular Socialist and Hindu Socialist.--86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Animal Farm investigated

Both socialism and communism were put under the spotlight by George Orwell's book Animal Farm and the later 1954 cartoon film. Boxer the horse was a socialist worker, if not a full blown Commy, while Napoleon the pig was a corrupt datcha communist that would have felt at home during Leonid Breznev's later years as Soviet premier.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin the donkey had socialist tenancies and was probably a social democrat, but definitely not a Red. Snowball the pig had ideas similar to Trotsky's idea of Permanent Revolution and was probably a full blown communist and not a socialist. Their idealistic little ditty Beasts of England was a freedom song that had no political colours to it, but the ideology of Animalism was a piss take on the failure of both communism, socialism and lefties in general! --86.29.141.168 (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

George Orwell

George Orwell, a democratic socialist^[1] and a member of the Independent Labour Party for many years, was a critic of Joseph Stalin and was suspicious of Moscow-directed Stalinism after his experiences with the NKVD during the Spanish Civil War.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

^ "Why I Write" (1936) (The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 – An Age Like This 1945-1950 p.23 (Penguin))

--86.29.130.210 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Judaism

Both Christian values and Rabbinical Jewish values are also morally leaning towards socialism to.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The SLP and SDP

The UK's Socialist Labour Party is an example of a socialist communist party. Germany's Social Democratic Party is an example of reformed socialist party.--86.29.130.210 (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Lark Rise to Candleford investigated

Both Lark Rise to Candleford and the modern Lark Rise to Candleford (TV series) mentions situations and ideas that can be considered to be relevant to socialism in late Victorian rual England.

1 Episode- The young country girl Laura Timmins leaves her friends and family in the hamlet of Lark Rise to start her first job at the post office in nearby town Candleford. Postmistress Dorcas Lane gives Laura a warm welcome but other residents of Candleford aren't so generous. When Lark Rise residents challenge the post office's 'eight mile rule' that forces them to pay for delivery of telegrams, Laura finds herself torn between communities.
Episode 6- Robert takes pity on a homeless family and brings them to stay at his house for the night. In the morning the family have departed, leaving their little daughter Polly behind. Lady Adelaide meets the girl and falls in love with her, wanting to adopt her, but Sir Tim thinks that adopting Polly would be inappropriate. Tim takes Polly to the Post Office where everyone struggles to think of a solution to the problem. Twister's delusions grow worse as he sees visions of his dead sister, and Queenie worries about his health.
Episode 31- When the Lark Rise school loses its teacher, Emma steps in and discovers a talent she never knew she had. But Margaret also covets the role of teacher, and the two women become rivals for the job. Over in Candleford, Thomas and Dorcas are at odds. The postman is agitating for better working conditions, and Dorcas isn't taking it well.
Episode 34- When the postmaster at Inglestone, with an old score to settle, tries to force Dorcas into selling up, she is faced with the heartbreaking prospect of losing her home and denying Sydney his dream of running the post office one day. --86.29.141.168 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

These may be valid points, but are they mentioned in WP:RELIABLE sources? If not, they seem to be WP:OR. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Map upgrades

The Baltic states, the Ukraine, Chechenya, Kazachstan, Transcauasia, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia all dumped Socialisum and/or Communisum in the 1990's, but the other Soviet states have retained it. --86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

New time line map

--86.29.140.96 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Somalia

The Somali Democratic Republic lasted from 1969-1991, 22 years, yet the map says that it was socialist for less than ten. --Mrdie (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --86.29.140.96 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Finland

The "Finnish Democratic Republic" would seem to be an inappropriate entry in this list. A Soviet stooge regime which lasted for three months and did not control any territory independently from the Soviet Army, while the legitimate Finland government continued to operate uninterrupted in most of its territory, is not a state recognised by anybody.

If you are going to recognise the "Finland Democratic Republic" of 1939-1940 in this list, then you would have to add the former communist bandits in the Phillipines, Malaya, Greece, El Salvador and a whole collection of other places as socialist regimes as well.Eregli bob (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Cambodia

Shouldn't Cambodia be listed as either socialist or informal socialist? The Cambodian Peoples Party (formerly the Kampuchean Peoples Revolutionary Party) controls the executive branch as well as the National Assebly and Senate (both houses of the legislative branch). Even the constitution has socialist references with socialized healthcare, education, and natural resources, as well as limited socialization of employment, homes and economic development. Additionally all citizens must take part in national reconstruction and defence (conscription/socialized military).Pangeanempire (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. A young communist (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What?

"A map of countries who declared themselves to be socialist states under the Marxist-Leninist definition (in the west known as, "Communist states") at some point in their history. The map uses present-day borders. Note that not all of these countries were Marxist-Leninist at the same time."

That map is like, 30 years outdated. Sorry.

1 word: Yugoslavia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.200.102 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Additions

I added India, Portugal and Guyana, as last I checked, all 3 had constitutions with references to Socialism. The goal of this article should be to provide the countries who verifiably claim Socialism as a guiding ideology or foundation and do this in either the constitution, or in the case of somewhere like Libya without a constitution, in their official name. Whether these countries are or are not Socialist isn't our call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.166.157.60 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Everyone know that Nazi Germany was fascist right. Just reiterating that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.51.200 (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Many argue that since fascism is anti-capitalism and anti-communism that it is socialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was not really anti-capitalist, they just had some anti-capitalist rethoric but did not have anti-capitalist policies178.210.114.106 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hayek's Road to Serfdom has a great argument describing the roots of Nazism in socialism. 10stone5 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Second Spanish Republic

Should Spain be included in either the Ethermal or Former section. In the Spanish Civil War the Republican Faction was made of left-wing parties, inluding anarchists and communists and also in areas dominated by the Anarchists there was the Spanish Revolution. Any thoughts?? Winnie412ii (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ownership of the means of production was never taken into public hands. Therefore by definition Spain has never been either socialist or communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.224.4 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

India

India also has references to socialism in the Preamble of the Constitution: The terms 'secular and socialist were added into the preamble of the Indian constitution ONLY IN 1976 by the 42nd amendment .

[2] –– 31.147.31.1 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Tanzania

Tanzania also has references to Socialism in the Article 1 of the Constitution: [3] --31.147.31.1 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Nepal

Please highlight/colour Nepal in the map. Nepal has been under socialist parties direct rule since 2008 till present date.

Nepal is not a socialist country. It has a coalition government which includes maoist communists, among others. The republic's Constitution has not yet been written, so we do not know yet is Nepal going to have a marxist-leninist or non-marxist-leninist references in the Constitution. --31.147.9.133 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

That is correct and the source given just links back to wikipedia & not to an outside source to back it up. It should not be included until it has been verified & be removed as such time it has been confirmed.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You both need to see the talks about Nepal above than putting your own POV. Also, just having a coalition government doesnot mean its not a socialist country. There are many socialist countries with coalition governments. Please discuss it in the Nepal topics than reverting. --DBhuwanSurfer 01:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBSSURFER (talk • contribs)

It have to be SINGLE-PARTY to be a socialist state. electoral democracies aren't "socialist states". Because socialist state is a form of rule, and NOT the same as socialist GOVERNMENT. --188.113.91.110 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many other states listed in this article which are multi-party. Exclusion of Nepal is arbitrary. As is exclusion of France for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.143.231 (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

None of them are officially socialist states. Just because they elect a socialist party (as in the case of France) or a communist party (as in the case of Nepal) to government, doesn't make that state socialist. Its socialist until that state proclaims itself socialist. --TIAYN (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this really Socialism

I know this was discussed before, but this page seems really wrong. The first country listed as socialist is China which clearly has a Capitalist system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.19.51 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as they declare themselves to be socialist, they are socialist... Secondly, you can be socialist without opposing capitalism - social democracy is one example... Thirdly, just because you have a planned economy that doesn't necessarily make the country socialist - North Korea is probably the least socialist of any of the self-proclaimed socialist states. And finally, you are thinking about Soviet communism - when the state owns everything; not all socialist movements oppose capitalism (or private ownership of the means of production) and not all of them support complete state ownership of the means of production. --TIAYN (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

This seems a rather . . . strange set of criteria. Could I create a government where leadership is given based off of royal bloodline and there are no elections, but be considered a democracy because I call my country that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.19.51 (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You could call it that, but people would not call you're country a democracy.... The point being was the following; just because the Soviet Union had complete state ownership over its economy, doesn't mean all socialist countries have to have complete state ownership over the economy..There are many socialists who support private ownership, and some even support capitalism.... However, you're example fits North Korea perfectly; the country has nothing to do with socialism, in theory or in practice, but its officially declared to be such - people still refer to North Korea as a socialist state... Another example is Saddam Hussein's Iraq and modern Syria; they espouse Arab socialism, but Arab socialism supports private ownership... My point is the following; there are many different routes to building a socialist society, there is not one answer (as the Soviet Union claimed), but several. --TIAYN (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, a long time ago some people wanted to create a list of socialist countries on Wikipedia, but they could not agree which countries should be on the list, because they could not agree on what counts as "socialism." This is always going to happen, because the word "socialism" does not have a single, universally accepted definition. Instead, there are many different things that people have called "socialism," and there are many mutually-exclusive definitions of socialism. So it was agreed that the Wikipedia list of socialist countries will simply contain all the countries that called themselves "socialist." That is the only way that we can prevent this article from degenerating into an argument about what socialism really means. Ohff (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Portugal

Can someone tell me when Portugal declared itself to be socialist? 85.245.215.207 (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Portugal declared itself as beign a nation moving towards a socialist society as of April 2nd 1976. Check link http://www.parlamento.pt/Legislacao/Documents/constpt2005.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.79.89.96 (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

^[1]

North Korea as former Marxist-Leninist State 1948-1972

I see from our article on North Korea (3rd paragraph of lead) that Juche replaced Marxism-Leninism as the official state philosophy in 1972. Would it be reasonable to add it (as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) to the list of former Marxist-Leninist states?--Wikimedes (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be reasonable. --TIAYN (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Done--Wikimedes (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag missing

Hey there, just wanted to point out that the small 23px*15px flag of Egypt is missing. I myself have no idea how so would someone be kind enough to fix it please? Thank you :) --Avenflight (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

^ Portuguese Constitution

[1] "Why I Write" (1936) (The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell Volume 1 – An Age Like This 1945-1950 p.23 (Penguin))

[2] Portuguese Constitution

[1]

[1]