Talk:List of socialist states

Why isn't country X included? It was socialist! Or why do you have country Y on the list? It was not socialist!

On this page, we often get asked questions like the above. Many readers object to the selection of countries on the list, arguing that it does not accurately reflect which countries were socialist in the past or which ones are socialist today. And there is a lot of merit to these criticisms. There are some countries on this list that would not be considered socialist by any definition used by political scholars, historians or the vast majority of the world's socialists. Almost no one would consider Portugal or Sri Lanka to be socialist countries, for example. But they are on the list. Why? Well, you see, anyone trying to compose a list of socialist countries faces a serious question: What counts as a "socialist country"? There are many different conceptions of "socialism", some of them mutually exclusive, and self-described socialists do not agree on what "socialism" means (not to mention the large numbers of non-socialists who also have their own opinions about what "socialism" means). So, which definition of "socialism" are we going to use to compose our list? By some definitions, there have been only one or two (or even zero) socialist countries in human history. By other definitions, half the world could be called socialist. But Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. So how do we compose a list of socialist countries while staying neutral about the meaning of the word "socialism"? We have decided that the best way to do it is by simply including every country that claimed to be socialist. That way we stay out of all debates about what "socialism" means. Unfortunately, this also means that we end up including some countries that claim to be socialist but whose claim is widely regarded as being inaccurate or untrue.

And it also means that as long as a country does not officially claim to be socialist, we cannot include it on the list, even if most people (and even members of its own government) routinely refer to it as being "socialist" in informal settings. For example, members of the Venezuelan government often claim to be building socialism, but they have not officially added the words "socialism" or "socialist" to any part of the Venezuelan constitution, so the country is officially not socialist.

We know this method has a lot of flaws, but it seems that the only other option would be for us to decide that a certain definition of socialism is the true definition, and to list the countries that were socialist according to that. Such an approach would violate our NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy, so we cannot do that. KS79 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Any country with Basic income guarantee should be included in this List.
2. Those without it, should have Public transport system, Free Education system, & Free Medical system, to be considered Socialist

interesting Link: http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/ ---Ne0 (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ne0Freedom, you know that socialism means worker-control of the means of production, right? The two points you described can be a part of socialism, but doesn't mean that just because a country has them means it's socialist. I highly disagree with the idea of calling any self-proclaimed socialist country as really socialist. It's like calling the D(emocratic)PRK democratic. Ridiculous. Socialistguy (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh my; I think you're to 'blame' here for people without school basing all socialist countries of the World on this wiki; stating there are no Socialist countries that work. These are self-proclaimed socialist countries: dictatorships not accepting democracy; not socialist democracies who wouldn't proclaim themselves as a pure socialist (ant-democratic) state form... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.117.7.125 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

1. 1. 1. 1. Spain has had members of the Spanish Communist Party in their government for the last 2 years or so, including the Minister of Consumer Affairs and the Minister of Labour (who has now been a vicepresident for a few months). Shouldn't they be included in the list of governments with socialist members, if only by comparison to Argentina? 155.245.155.209 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

            I don't equate socialism with communism. 96.227.146.8 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Raul Castro is no longer the "Head of State"

Since 19 April 2018, Miguel Díaz-Canel has been the President of Cuba, while Raúl Castro remains in charge of the Communist Party. Therefore I would suggest that Díaz-Canel be placed as "Head of State" in the "Cuba/Current Marxist-Leninist States" infobox.

Lightningliege (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please provide a reliable source for your changes. Waddie96 (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2018

Yugoslavia was never Marxist-Leninist. It had its own system, Yugoslav Liberal Socialism, also known as Titoism. 46.36.187.120 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm not an expert in this subject area, but elsewhere on Wikipedia Titoism is named as a variety of Marxism-Leninism (including Marxism-Leninism). ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2018

I would strongly suggest changing the cuba marxist leninist placement to non-marxist leninist placement seeing as how the incoming new constitution has ommitted all references to directly achieving communism, and rather simply socialism. 95.224.95.166 (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Danski454 (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2018

CUBA in th 'Marxist-Leninist' category should be changed as its rewritten constitution excludes all mention of communism. To be done. 95.224.95.166 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Before you accuse me of being historically ignorant, I just want to say that I am aware the Nazis were not actually socialists. The only reason they called themselves National "Socialists" was to attract left-wingers who wanted an alternative to the more mainstream left-wing parties in the Weimar Republic, although they espoused far-right corporatist policies. But Portugal, an obviously capitalist country, references socialism in its constitution and is therefore included in this article, while Nazi Germany, a regime with a fascist and corporatist economic system but has the National Socialist German Workers' Party as the only legal party in the country, is not. By this logic, why is Portugal included but not Nazi Germany? AxolotlsAreCool (talk) 03:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Guinea-Bissau

Guinea-Bissau is shown on the map as a country that is or has been either a marxist-leninist or general socialist state, and i remember finding it in one of the main lists before, but now it is gone from the main lists! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Portugal Constitution isn`t socialist anymore

The original text of the Constitution of 1976 was definetely socialist, it called for the construction of a classless society, but since the 1982 revision, it has been changed to tone down their original ideological content. Since 1982, the references to socialism have been replaced, the Constitution doesn`t call anymore for socialism, at least since the 1989 revision. Since the Constitution revisions have to be approved by a 2/3 majority in the Portuguese Assembly of the Republic, by the largest parties, center-right PSD and center-left PS, it makes sense that the current text of the Constitution has become centrist, its socialist content started to be changed when the first revision was done in 1982, and it mostly disappeared in the 1989 revision. The only reference to socialism that remains in the Constitution, for historical reasons, since it can`t be changed, appears at the Preamble. The Portuguese Constitution currently starts this way: "Artigo 1/ República Portuguesa/ Portugal é uma República soberana, baseada na dignidade da pessoa humana e na vontade popular e empenhada na construção de uma sociedade livre, justa e solidária." "Article 1/ Portuguese Republic/ Portugal is a sovereign Republic, based on the dignity of the human person and the popular will and committed to the construction of a free, just and solidary society." The preamble isn't part of the Constitution. Its ridiculous to claim that the Constitution of 1976 is still socialist just because of that. [1]Mistico (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge to List of former communist states and socialist states to List of socialist states

I propose merging List of former communist states and socialist states to List of socialist states. Content in the former is mostly duplicated with the later, which covers former and ephemeral states too. It seems a (now blocked) user created the copy last year without sharing any rationale. -- MarioGom (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Agree There is no need for the copycat page when all of its information is listed on the "List of socialist states" page. -- Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) -- 16 August 2019
• Agree per MarioGom and Mt.FijiBoiz's rationale.--Davide King (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom and Mt.FijiBoiz, I boldly did the merge on 31 March 2020.--Davide King (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The DPR of Korea

Both the Communist state article and Template:History of Communist Nations call the DPRK both a communist state and a Marxist-Leninist one, with a reference. Whereas the current article makes a distinction between Juche Korea and the rest of clearly constitutionally socialist states. This makes zero sense.
The current article also employs a map which marks Korea as not socialist, which is preposterous, as their constitution is literally called the Socialist Constitution of the DPR of Korea.--Adûnâi (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

---

It also makes no sense if Yugoslavia is Marxist-Leninist, but not DPRK although North Korea is still described as Stalinist [1][2][3][4][5][6]
@Mt.FijiBoiz:, @Vif12vf:, @Davide King: you have probably made the most changes in the past, please reveal your opinion Braganza (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's very simple, read the note: In 1992, all references to Marxism–Leninism in the constitution were dropped and replaced with Juche.[41] In 2009, the constitution was quietly amended so that not only did it remove all Marxist–Leninist references present in the first draft, but it also dropped all reference to communism.[42] It actually was in Former communist states at Communist state, but someone changed that. Also read the Overview section.--Davide King (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To reiterate what Davide King said, multiple constitutional references from North Korea refer to the country as simply a socialist state (guided by the principles of Juche). The North Korean constitution no longer makes any references to Marxism-Leninism, while the Yugoslavian constitution did. This article is about self-identification solely, so it would not matter that some people refer to Korea as "Stalinist". --Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that country is still the communist,juche is just another version of Marxism-Leninlism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.248.77.155 (talk • contribs)

You think? Drmies (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: There is a problem Template:Marxism–Leninism sidebar and Template:Marxism–Leninism claimed just that Braganza (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Braganza, that may be so; it should be handled appropriately, by discussion on the talk page, and not by edit warring and logged-out editing. That one editor says "I think it's this way" is not a valid argument, of course. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I think so too, but it should basically be regulated uniformly and this includes this list as well as the templates Braganza (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It should be noted that even though North Korea claims to follow another ideology, the roots of its own brand called Juche does still have elements of it. North Korea, despite its phony constitution, should be added back to the list of Marxist-Leninist states, which it has been removed from. 2600:1700:D090:3250:B42F:2286:CBB:8951 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Taiping Heavenly Kingdom

I heavily doubt the Taiping Heavenly kingdom was a socialist state. It was not only an absolute monarchy but was a theocracy. Even if they are viewed as socialist by the Chinese Communist Party and enacted socialistic policies, they did not claim to be socialists.RooinMahmood07 (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

PR of China under Mao was not a Marxist-Leninist state.

The PR of China under Mao Zedong was not a Marxist-Leninist state. It was a Maoist state with constitutional references to socialism, just like what North Korea now does with Juche ideology. China became a Marxist-Leninist state only after Mao's death in 1976 and Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978 with economic reforms and improving relations with Soviet Union during the Perestroika. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.180.96.215 (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maoism is a form of (and was Mao's interpretation of) Marxism–Leninism. You could consider it the original "socialism with Chinese characteristics". KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Anarchist entities

I believe it is problematic to list anarchist entities like Freetown Christiania, the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities and Makhnovia among others on a list of socialist states, and i think they should be removed. Now, before you go on, let me just point out that this is not meant to be an ideological critique of any kind. My political views are easy to find on my user-page, and i do not support anarchist ideology. The problem however is not whether anarchism is socialist or not, since i know for a fact that the most common forms of anarchism all are at the very least somewhat socialist in nature, the problem however is whether these entities can be characterized as states! Few to none of the anarchist entities in this article have any form of centralized leadership or any elements of a nation-state, in fact practically all of them are either autonomous municipalities or anarchist decentralised communities, either alone or in highly decentralised confederations. They dont really espouse the traits of a state, at least not enough to brand any particular entity a state in itself. Thus i believe these entities dont really belong in a list where being a state is a minimum criteria, but rather in a separate list of anarchist and other stateless entities! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

National socialist workers party of Germany?

Why hasn't it been added? Their party had clear socialist policies,called themselves socialist, and controlled a nation. Saying Nazism isn't socialism is like saying maoism isn't communism. Historical negationism of socialism is just as bad as historical revisionism of the nazis. Hawksofthewoods (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hawksofthewoods, see Talk:Nazi Party/FAQ and Talk:Nazism/FAQ. This is not "negationism" but the consensus of political scientists, historians and other reliable sources as shown at Talk:Fascism/FAQ. You are the one engaging in pseudohistory. Davide King (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You know who else had some arguably socialist policies, called themselves socialist, and ruled a nation? The French Socialist Party in 1997-2002, 1988-1993, and other periods. Also many other parties with the word "socialist" in the name, in many countries at many different times. Yet no one refers to those countries as "socialist countries", and this list does not include them (for good reason - most modern political parties with "socialist" in the name are centrist social democrats, not actual advocates of socialism).

Isn't it interesting how the people who want to call the Nazis "socialists" never extend the same argument to any other parties with "socialist" in the name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B12C:D693:4A00:47D9:8164:D4DB (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with putting the French Socialist party should be added as well. The nazis are just more historically significant is why I make the case. Hawksofthewoods (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Crimean Republic.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Reorganize list

While the list of "Current socialist states" is fine, the secondary "Countries with constitutional references to socialism" is more than unhelpful. As someone already pointed out Portugal removed references in socialism in its constitution and in practice isnt socialist and should be removed. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Constitution_of_Portugal#2nd_review_(1989) ) Also having multi-party democracies like India in the same list as North Korea and Eritrea which are much more in line with China, Cuba, Laos or Vietnam is neither accurate nor useful. They should either get their own list or be included in the main list, omitting the current "Marxist–Leninist states" criterium. I dont see why both M-L and Juche couldnt fit in the same list under the header "Current socialist states". Listing a bunch of countries that mention socialism but arent socialist like Nepal or Bangladesh might make sense, but putting them in the same list as NK isnt accurate by any standard. jonas (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree and support moving the Marxist-Leninist States to a separate list as the disambiguation at the top of the article claims exists. KnowledgeablePersona (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Cambodia

@Mt.FijiBoiz: i don't really know what you mean with "broke the table" Braganza (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

List of Socialist Countries

Socialism is different than Communism; this article seems to describe the two as dependent on each other Cochilar (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Portugal Constitution isn`t socialist anymore

The original text of the Constitution of 1976 was definetely socialist, it called for the construction of a classless society, but since the 1982 revision, it has been changed to tone down their original ideological content. Since 1982, the references to socialism have been replaced, the Constitution doesn`t call anymore for socialism, at least since the 1989 revision. Since the Constitution revisions have to be approved by a 2/3 majority in the Portuguese Assembly of the Republic, by the largest parties, center-right PSD and center-left PS, it makes sense that the current text of the Constitution has become centrist, its socialist content started to be changed when the first revision was done in 1982, and it mostly disappeared in the 1989 revision. The only reference to socialism that remains in the Constitution, for historical reasons, since it can`t be changed, appears at the Preamble. The Portuguese Constitution currently starts this way: "Artigo 1/ República Portuguesa/ Portugal é uma República soberana, baseada na dignidade da pessoa humana e na vontade popular e empenhada na construção de uma sociedade livre, justa e solidária." "Article 1/ Portuguese Republic/ Portugal is a sovereign Republic, based on the dignity of the human person and the popular will and committed to the construction of a free, just and solidary society." [7] The entry still needs sources, I will try to find them, before changing it.Mistico Dois (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Vietnam was neutral in 1945

Vietnam was not socialist or communist in 1945 with a democratic, pluralistic and multi-party system, unrelated to the Soviet Union and its communist bloc. 2001:EE0:41C1:96F3:E43D:6AE9:4206:F1EA (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Wa State Flag 2021.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Colors used on world map of different instances of socialist government.

Hello, Thanks for all that you do. Can you please change the colors on the world map for this article? There are five different types of nation, but the colors barely vary, especially the three oranges in the middle. 71.190.55.59 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Socialist states of German Empire, Australia, Israel

The Australian Labor Party was the world's first elected socialist party when it formed government in the Colony of Queensland in 1899.

From 1883, state socialism was implemented by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in the German Empire through social welfare legislation.

Mapai democratic socialist political party in Israel, and was the dominant force in Israeli politics until its merger into the modern-day Israeli Labor Party in 1968. During Mapai's time in office, a wide range of progressive reforms were carried out, as characterised by the establishment of a welfare state, providing minimum income, security, and free (or almost free) access to housing subsidies and health and social services.

Walapo (talk) 21:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Placement of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic

Per Political status of Western Sahara and International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, while Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara is considered illegal under international law, the SADR itself is only recognized by 45 UN member states and lacks even observer status with the UN itself. Shouldn't it be under the "limited recognition" section? TheAHayKid (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

North Korea is Marxist-Leninist, despite its phony constitution

It should be noted that even though North Korea claims to follow another ideology, the roots of its own brand called Juche does still have elements of it. I have multiple sources to back me up (i.e Song, Jiyoung. Human rights discourse in North Korea: Post-colonial, Marxist and Confucian perspectives. Vol. 21. Routledge, 2010. which states "North Korea is still officially a Marxist state.") If the counterargument to me is "the north korean constitution states otherwise." that argument is undeniably weak. The constitution of North Korea also guarantees freedom of speech, which anyone knows is a lie. Can we get consensus to re-add north korea back to the main list, which currently only has 4 nations? 2600:1700:D090:3250:B42F:2286:CBB:8951 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

North Korea is still officially a Marxist state: according to whom or what is this official? –Vipz (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The constitution of the WPK, which is the sole ruling party of the DPRK, explicitly adheres to Marxism-Leninism. If countries like Algeria and Guinea-Bissau are going to be on this list (even though their constitutional links to socialism are incredibly tenuous at best), then it only makes sense for that to be in the ML section Toma0910 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of Burkina Faso adopting Socialism?

At this point in time, I don't think we should add the state of Burkina Faso as a "Socialist" or "Marxist-Leninist" State. It doesn't have any aspect to it today that links towards socialism, I have not seen a single reference of what Burkina Faso has done for them to be re-examined as Socialist. They don't have a socialist economy, They don't declare themselves to be socialist and there is little evidence of them following such. The current leader is only a military strong man who hasn't actually implemented socialism inside of Burkina Faso. I ask that Burkina Faso should be removed from the list of current socialist states Wakapoodiaaaa24234 (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for reverting. –Vipz (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist states / Communist states

@Gluonz: Marxist-Leninist states redirect to communist states: they are the same thing! North Korea has the same form of government as the others! TheUzbek (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The DPRK has a de jure Juche government, not a Marxist-Leninist one. Also, they may be the same, but, especially here, changing "Marxist-Leninist states" to "Communist states" could be very ambiguous. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 22:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You are making things up. Does the Vietnamese constitution say Vietnam is a Marxist-Leninist state? Does any of the constitutions of China, Cuba or Laos? No. In fact no constitution has ever used those terms. China, Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea use "socialist state", and Laos people's democratic state... And they are all communist states because they have a communist form of government. If you don't know what a communist form of government is I advise you to read the communist state article.

This is original research at its worst! TheUzbek (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not “original research” that references to Marxism-Leninism were dropped from the constitution in 1992; see the article itself and its two entries for the country. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Gluonz Who cares if they have reference to it? nowhere in the document was there ever a reference to "Marxist-Leninist state". they had references to Marxism-Leninism, but that is different to "Marxist-Leninist state". So yes unless you can point to any of these constitutions using the term "Marxist-Leninist state" this is original research. What we do know is that all these states are communist states since they have the same form of government. TheUzbek (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry taking a while to reply. I am probably not the best person to argue against this case, and it seems some people might agree with your changes. If so, then they still may eventually be changed back by someone else, but they are fine for the time being. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 13:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Canton of Cartagena not socialist

The Canton of Cartagena was not socialist at all. It was liberal, republican, and federalist. 88.9.119.217 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find any sources or texts calling the Canton of Cartagena or the wider Cantonal rebellion 'liberal' or 'non-socialist'. There exists criticism of the Cantonal rebellion by the contemporary Francisco Tomás as "a purely political and bourgeois movement" (which he contrasted to the Alcoy insurrection—"a purely working-class, revolutionary socialist movement"), but I don't see how that describes the Canton of Cartagena as either non-socialist (rather than 'not socialist enough') or liberal. Cantonalism certainly had a socialist character, and sources seem to agree that anarchism had a considerable influence during the Cantonal rebellion. –Vipz (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)