Talk:Degenerated workers' state

Untitled
There are times when i despair. Every now and again i glance at wikipedia and think to add something new to it and then read an entry such as this and I despair!

Trots writing about degenerated workers states who do not know that it was Lenin who first developed the idea! What silly comrades you are.

Back in my day we would have reduced you to candidate membership and sent you to a series of educationals. Oh the pity of it.

Jock Haston

Clarity problems
I think this is a good example of an article which need some clean-up, from someone who knows what they're talking about. For a start, after the first paragraph, no sources are cited. Secondly, if we look at this, from the "Trotskyist definition" section:
 * The differences between a deformed workers state and a degenerated workers state is that there are only quantitative deformations in a deformed workers state, and therefore it can, as Trotsky and the Left Opposition demanded, be reformed. While a degenerated workers state has been qualitative degenerated and cannot be reformed, therefore requires a political revolution.

What does that mean? "Quantitative deformations"? What? That's just confusing. Could somebody please re-word this paragraph much more clearly, and add some sources too? I started to have a go myself, then realised I didn't really understand what they meant.

WikiReaderer 17:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion. Many thanks. --Duncan 11:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added more information and quotes directly from the old man to come to what I feel is a clearer definition. River sider ( talk ) 13:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussion
Articles for discussion:
 * Degenerated workers' state
 * Deformed workers' state

The only nuance to these two different terms is to what countr(y/ies) they refer to. The same basic concept is the same, which is why I'm advocating a merge.

Any thoughts?

QFlux (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They're significantly different theoretical concepts; but, given that they were part and parcel of a cohesive theory of soviet-style societies the articles could be merged, but would need to be merged delicately to indicate the difference in the ideas.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Agree, now, the only problem is the name of the merged article, it is like an article on Heads and Tails, where Heads cannot be discussed without the Tails getting involved, the only difference in the two concept is their provenance before becoming a "malformed" workers' state
 * —-— .:Seth Nimbosa:.  (talk • contribs) 12:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Still Strongly disagree due to the different role they played in group ideology. Degenerated workers state theses were a response to the failure of the Soviet Union prior to WWII.  Deformed workers' state theses were an attempt to resurrect, or defend, a failed hypothesis: that the Soviet Union was essentially okay; in the post war period.  If this debate gets lost then they should be merged under Degenerated workers' state as its the chief innovation and core concept.Fifelfoo (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree, as I can't think of any suitable title and/or format capturing both the similarities and yet the important distinctions of the two theories, better than the current state of things (i.e. two separate articles). I'm open to ideas however. But until there's a concrete and proper alternative it's too much of a risk to merge these two confusingly similar articles into one more confusing piece. --Franz.87 (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. At the moment workers' state goes to socialist state, and it would be better to have an article to reflect on the class nature of the non-capitalist states.--Duncan (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree They are two clearly distinct categories, based on whether the working class itself seized power through it's own party and organisations, as in Russia, and then the worker's state suffered a bureaucratic degeneration, or whether some other force (such as a military coup or invasion) brought about the replacement of capitalist property relations and then imposed a ready-made bureaucracy to rule society. This may seem a subtle distinction, but it can have deep importance in understanding the dynamics of those societies. River sider ( talk ) 10:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Synthesize Under Communist mode of production, in a subsection historical attempts oder. The draft there will work here, no special adaptations to my space were placed in it, except in the lede, the breakage in the Trotskyism template will not occur here. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree They're completely different. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Back matter
Participated in this as an ip above prior to policy change. On the new lede sentence, my personal belief is that the thing is a misnomer, a conceptual blunder. The so-called degenerated worker's states are nothing less than actual realizations of the worker of the old society as an autocrat. In any case necessary to make clear the idealistic implication/baggage of the noun phrase.Lycurgus (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the easily verified timeline of events:


 * 1) October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution
 * 2) 30 December 1922 Soviet Union Treaty
 * 3) 6 January 1925 Trotsky's forced resignation

This conflation of the original revolution in Russia with the Soviet Union is so common it should have a name. Lycurgus (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't tell what criticism you're raising about the article or what change you might be proposing. Whether Trotsky was right or wrong seems quite irrelevant to providing an accurate description of his belief. 66.87.119.162 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)