This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
One-party state article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
It fits all the criteria, does it not? The modern day Democratic Party in the US traces its roots farther back to the original "ruling class" (established 1776) than any other developed country on this planet. That may be hyperbolic, but consider the following:
ONE party remains in control (or benefits from making outrageous political campaign contributions towards and suddenly falling into millions of dollars) of all the following:
.. bla bla.. The entire [insert anything you can imagine here] is ran by a SINGLE PARTY ... Lets stop pretending and just admit that the US controls what their people pay taxes for, watch, vote, learn, read, buy, do, eat, listen to, post on social media, etc.. all directed by a SINGLE political machine that supports a SINGLE party's agenda (more votes = more money). Not by choice.
Even Trump was a major player in the NYC/NJ Democratic Party machine with the AC Casino era (the mob aspect can be discussed at another time). Despite his rhetoric, he posed very little challenge to the ruling class and completely failed to be more than an entertainer in chief. When he took over his father's business, his goal was to venture out to Manhattan and Atlantic City instead of the outskirts of Queens by the airport and/or mass influx of immigrants. Take a wild guess which political party he suddenly started mingling with then..
Look at the way major US city districts are *somehow* being magically changed (gerrymandered) to consistently favor votes for more and more (D)'s. Even the most ultra desirable neighborhoods (mostly former liberals -> conservatives who fled the city) in NYC outskirts such as South Brooklyn, Staten Island, and rural areas of Queens and north NJ are suddenly (D)'s now. So now they're just going to flood these gems further away to avoid paying outrageous amounts of taxes for being successful AF and these beautiful areas will rot. Just like Bed Stuy, North Bronx, South Brooklyn, Camden, AC, Trenton, Newark, etc.. Once gorgeous cities decimated by what eventually became controlled by who? A SINGLE party.
Every. single. major. city. is ran entirely by a SINGLE party. The outrageous pursuit to ensure the populous does not vote the "wrong way" (that is to say (R).. aka the opposition party) is blatantly obvious. The richest man in the country owns the main media outlet (WaPo) that decides what the capitol's insiders deem acceptable for public discourse and go from there. Relentlessly biased towards the goals of a SINGLE party. The suppression of opposing views as of 2018-2022 is now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged. Other developed countries have a wide array of political parties and tolerance for eventually negotiating towards the middle - to pass bills and actually run their countries to represent their people (aka a Democracy). The US has only one "acceptable" party to support. The only mainstream "conservative" media outlets that remain are basically just coastal elite "Limousine Liberals" LARPING as conservatives for pay from Newscorp. Most are even registered Democrats. The rest have all been removed.
TLDR: I dare anyone to argue that the USA is anything but a single party state. Any major political shift in the country was made by a SINGLE PARTY.. outside Lincoln, which I point to as establishing the one and only resistance party the county ever saw - but has been completely decimated by upp.. a SINGLE PARTY. Can you dig it??
I welcome any input here or parallels to other nations as far a the true definition of a one/single party state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.107.82 ( talk) 07:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
De-facto one party states are mentioned once in the article, then not brought up again. Many people (perhaps more so outside of academia) understand the concept of one-party states to encompass de-facto one party states. De-facto one party states should be expanded on in their own section with some examples.
I can see that Dominant-party system already exists, but that article appears to be addressing a much more loosely defined concept - the phenomenon of any time a political party remains in power for more than one consecutive term. Moreover, it doesn't properly explain the concept of de-facto one party states and their characteristics. Barring a rewrite of that article, the concept of de-facto one party states should be expanded on more in this article. 180.150.37.114 ( talk) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Pressure group 102.88.36.46 ( talk) 06:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I've undone a major deletion of two cited countries in this article's table. This is a page to discuss what should be added, how it should be presented, to prevent major edits of this new section without previous consensus and discussion. Before deleting any country, discuss it here. I want this to be a more general thread, so unless it is heavily agreed upon, talk here before adding or deleting entire countries. Some topics I would like to discuss are specifying who claims what; establishing how strict and formal this definition should be; and discussing the more controversial countries, like populist parties (such as Russia, Hungary, India, etc), increasingly multipartidary countries (like Mexico and Japan). And on the more extreme end, adding countries which have party bans (I don't really agree with most of these, but are valid arguments, and should be discussed). Nknka ( talk) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't Mexico be in the former one-party states list? It literally says in the information section "The PRI held uninterrupted power for 71 years, from 1929 to 2000, but its power has since dwindled and the de facto one-party system in Mexico disappeared " MaxGame5o ( talk) 14:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
In short, it is a law that allows the government (the PSUV) to outlaw any political party or organization considered "extremist" as well as prohibit demonstrations against it, effectively prohibiting any legal opposition to the PSUV, and only allowing those parties to participate if they submit to the new laws (same case as in China with the United Front).
- https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article287431415.html
At the moment Venezuela does not have a constitution, but with this at least it should be put in the place of "de facto one-party states". ComradeHektor ( talk) 23:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This section possibly contains
original research. |
One-party states justify themselves through various methods. Most often, proponents of a one-party state argue that the existence of separate parties runs counter to national unity. citation needed Others argue that the one party is the vanguardof the people, being its most politically aware members, and therefore the party's right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned. citation needed The Soviet government argued that the existence of multiple political parties would perpetuate class struggle, so only a single party could lead a classless proletariat; it therefore made the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the only authorised political party. citation needed
Conversely, Russian historian Vadim Rogovin attributed the establishment of the one-party system to the conditions which were "imposed on Bolshevism by hostile political forces". Rogovin highlighted the fact that the Bolsheviks made strenuous efforts to preserve the Soviet parties such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and other left parties within the bounds of Soviet legality and their participation in the Soviets on the condition of abandoning armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. [1] Leon Trotsky argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on the opposition partiessuch as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries as soon as the economic and social conditions of Soviet Russia had improved. [2]
Some one-party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition (such as a popular front). citation needed However, these allied parties are largely or completely subservient to the ruling party and must accept the ruling party's monopoly of power as a condition of their existence. citation neededExamples of this are the National Front in former East Germany and the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Koreain North Korea. Other states outlaw all other parties yet allow non-party members to run for legislative seats as independents, as was the case with Taiwan's Tangwai movement in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the elections in the former Soviet Union. Still others have only a single legal party, membership of which is a prerequisite for holding public office, such as in Turkmenistan under the rule of Saparmurat Niyazov or Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko. citation needed
Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over one-party states are often referred to simply as the Party. For example, in reference to the Soviet Union, the Party meant the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; in reference to the pre-1991 Republic of Zambia, it referred to the United National Independence Party. citation needed
Most one-party states have been ruled by one of the following: citation needed
Superb Owl ( talk) 03:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
A one-party state is not defined by the existence of a single legal political formation (rather, this has been the exception rather than the norm), instead it is better defined as a state where either by the constitution or By a legal rule or decree, a political party holds the monopoly of political power, and other legal parties may in fact exist (as in people's republics). Of course, these formations must be subordinated to the laws and therefore adopt a minor or irrelevant role. ComradeHektor ( talk) 03:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
One-party state article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
It fits all the criteria, does it not? The modern day Democratic Party in the US traces its roots farther back to the original "ruling class" (established 1776) than any other developed country on this planet. That may be hyperbolic, but consider the following:
ONE party remains in control (or benefits from making outrageous political campaign contributions towards and suddenly falling into millions of dollars) of all the following:
.. bla bla.. The entire [insert anything you can imagine here] is ran by a SINGLE PARTY ... Lets stop pretending and just admit that the US controls what their people pay taxes for, watch, vote, learn, read, buy, do, eat, listen to, post on social media, etc.. all directed by a SINGLE political machine that supports a SINGLE party's agenda (more votes = more money). Not by choice.
Even Trump was a major player in the NYC/NJ Democratic Party machine with the AC Casino era (the mob aspect can be discussed at another time). Despite his rhetoric, he posed very little challenge to the ruling class and completely failed to be more than an entertainer in chief. When he took over his father's business, his goal was to venture out to Manhattan and Atlantic City instead of the outskirts of Queens by the airport and/or mass influx of immigrants. Take a wild guess which political party he suddenly started mingling with then..
Look at the way major US city districts are *somehow* being magically changed (gerrymandered) to consistently favor votes for more and more (D)'s. Even the most ultra desirable neighborhoods (mostly former liberals -> conservatives who fled the city) in NYC outskirts such as South Brooklyn, Staten Island, and rural areas of Queens and north NJ are suddenly (D)'s now. So now they're just going to flood these gems further away to avoid paying outrageous amounts of taxes for being successful AF and these beautiful areas will rot. Just like Bed Stuy, North Bronx, South Brooklyn, Camden, AC, Trenton, Newark, etc.. Once gorgeous cities decimated by what eventually became controlled by who? A SINGLE party.
Every. single. major. city. is ran entirely by a SINGLE party. The outrageous pursuit to ensure the populous does not vote the "wrong way" (that is to say (R).. aka the opposition party) is blatantly obvious. The richest man in the country owns the main media outlet (WaPo) that decides what the capitol's insiders deem acceptable for public discourse and go from there. Relentlessly biased towards the goals of a SINGLE party. The suppression of opposing views as of 2018-2022 is now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged. Other developed countries have a wide array of political parties and tolerance for eventually negotiating towards the middle - to pass bills and actually run their countries to represent their people (aka a Democracy). The US has only one "acceptable" party to support. The only mainstream "conservative" media outlets that remain are basically just coastal elite "Limousine Liberals" LARPING as conservatives for pay from Newscorp. Most are even registered Democrats. The rest have all been removed.
TLDR: I dare anyone to argue that the USA is anything but a single party state. Any major political shift in the country was made by a SINGLE PARTY.. outside Lincoln, which I point to as establishing the one and only resistance party the county ever saw - but has been completely decimated by upp.. a SINGLE PARTY. Can you dig it??
I welcome any input here or parallels to other nations as far a the true definition of a one/single party state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.107.82 ( talk) 07:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
De-facto one party states are mentioned once in the article, then not brought up again. Many people (perhaps more so outside of academia) understand the concept of one-party states to encompass de-facto one party states. De-facto one party states should be expanded on in their own section with some examples.
I can see that Dominant-party system already exists, but that article appears to be addressing a much more loosely defined concept - the phenomenon of any time a political party remains in power for more than one consecutive term. Moreover, it doesn't properly explain the concept of de-facto one party states and their characteristics. Barring a rewrite of that article, the concept of de-facto one party states should be expanded on more in this article. 180.150.37.114 ( talk) 10:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Pressure group 102.88.36.46 ( talk) 06:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I've undone a major deletion of two cited countries in this article's table. This is a page to discuss what should be added, how it should be presented, to prevent major edits of this new section without previous consensus and discussion. Before deleting any country, discuss it here. I want this to be a more general thread, so unless it is heavily agreed upon, talk here before adding or deleting entire countries. Some topics I would like to discuss are specifying who claims what; establishing how strict and formal this definition should be; and discussing the more controversial countries, like populist parties (such as Russia, Hungary, India, etc), increasingly multipartidary countries (like Mexico and Japan). And on the more extreme end, adding countries which have party bans (I don't really agree with most of these, but are valid arguments, and should be discussed). Nknka ( talk) 13:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't Mexico be in the former one-party states list? It literally says in the information section "The PRI held uninterrupted power for 71 years, from 1929 to 2000, but its power has since dwindled and the de facto one-party system in Mexico disappeared " MaxGame5o ( talk) 14:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
In short, it is a law that allows the government (the PSUV) to outlaw any political party or organization considered "extremist" as well as prohibit demonstrations against it, effectively prohibiting any legal opposition to the PSUV, and only allowing those parties to participate if they submit to the new laws (same case as in China with the United Front).
- https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/venezuela/article287431415.html
At the moment Venezuela does not have a constitution, but with this at least it should be put in the place of "de facto one-party states". ComradeHektor ( talk) 23:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This section possibly contains
original research. |
One-party states justify themselves through various methods. Most often, proponents of a one-party state argue that the existence of separate parties runs counter to national unity. citation needed Others argue that the one party is the vanguardof the people, being its most politically aware members, and therefore the party's right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned. citation needed The Soviet government argued that the existence of multiple political parties would perpetuate class struggle, so only a single party could lead a classless proletariat; it therefore made the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the only authorised political party. citation needed
Conversely, Russian historian Vadim Rogovin attributed the establishment of the one-party system to the conditions which were "imposed on Bolshevism by hostile political forces". Rogovin highlighted the fact that the Bolsheviks made strenuous efforts to preserve the Soviet parties such as the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and other left parties within the bounds of Soviet legality and their participation in the Soviets on the condition of abandoning armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. [1] Leon Trotsky argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on the opposition partiessuch as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries as soon as the economic and social conditions of Soviet Russia had improved. [2]
Some one-party states only outlaw opposition parties, while allowing allied parties to exist as part of a permanent coalition (such as a popular front). citation needed However, these allied parties are largely or completely subservient to the ruling party and must accept the ruling party's monopoly of power as a condition of their existence. citation neededExamples of this are the National Front in former East Germany and the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Koreain North Korea. Other states outlaw all other parties yet allow non-party members to run for legislative seats as independents, as was the case with Taiwan's Tangwai movement in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as the elections in the former Soviet Union. Still others have only a single legal party, membership of which is a prerequisite for holding public office, such as in Turkmenistan under the rule of Saparmurat Niyazov or Zaire under Mobutu Sese Seko. citation needed
Within their own countries, dominant parties ruling over one-party states are often referred to simply as the Party. For example, in reference to the Soviet Union, the Party meant the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; in reference to the pre-1991 Republic of Zambia, it referred to the United National Independence Party. citation needed
Most one-party states have been ruled by one of the following: citation needed
Superb Owl ( talk) 03:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
A one-party state is not defined by the existence of a single legal political formation (rather, this has been the exception rather than the norm), instead it is better defined as a state where either by the constitution or By a legal rule or decree, a political party holds the monopoly of political power, and other legal parties may in fact exist (as in people's republics). Of course, these formations must be subordinated to the laws and therefore adopt a minor or irrelevant role. ComradeHektor ( talk) 03:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)