Talk:One-party state

Why isn't the USA considered a One Party State?
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:


 * the absolute highest branches of power
 * the entire educational system
 * the entire media alphabet soup
 * the entire military industrial complex
 * the entire financial system (even Trump admitted he made more money under Democrats)
 * the entire electoral college
 * national sports
 * music
 * television
 * talk radio
 * theater
 * entertainment

.. 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)


 * @966.248.107.82 What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent, rant, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who has been on this talk page is now dumber for having seen it.
 * To those who think anything this person has said is true,
 *  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:
 * A one party state has multiple political parties the USA has two large parties, (Democratic and Republican) party and several smaller ones (Green, Libertarian etc) so no, it doesn't qualify as a single party state. The Democratic party emerged in the 1820's
 * Anyway continuing -
 * 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:
 * • the absolute highest branches of power
 * Wrong Republicans have a majority in the House of repesentatives and SCOTUS
 * • the entire educational system
 * You do know private education exists right? Furthermore education is mostly funded by state and local governments so the democrats would have to control 'every' state and school board to control the education system.
 * • the entire media alphabet soup
 * Fox news
 * • the entire military industrial complex
 * The military is controlled by the government and funded by congress of which the republicans have the house
 * • the entire financial system (even Trump admitted he made more money under Democrats)
 * Really? The Democrats control all the money do they? Every bank, every business, everyone who owns money is controlled by the evil Democrats? This is one of the dumbest things you say, and given the content of this rant that is quite an achievement
 * • the entire electoral college
 * If the democrats controlled the entire electoral college the maps would be all blue, they're not 2020 2016 2012 2008 2004 2000 1996 etc
 * • national sports
 * https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/inside-the-political-donation-history-of-wealthy-sports-owners/
 * • music
 * Country music, Sweet Home Alabama
 * • television
 * Newsmax TV
 * • talk radio
 * Conservative Talk Radio
 * • theater
 * What are you talking about
 * • entertainment
 * https://www.insider.com/republican-celebrities-2018-11
 * .. bla bla.. The entire [insert anything you can imagine here] is ran by a SINGLE PARTY That would have to include the republican party too  ... Lets [sic] stop pretending and just admit that the US controls what their people pay taxes for, Government spending is controlled by the Congress of the United States which is partially controlled by the republicans, watch You can pretty much watch anything in the United States, provided it does not break Obscenity laws or violate National security vote, 2016 United States Presidential Election learn, read, Who is burning the books buy, Including Republican donations? do, eat, Wut listen to, Ben Shapiro Show post on social media, Truth Social etc.. all directed by a SINGLE political machine that supports a SINGLE party's agenda (more votes = more money). Not by choice. As demonstrated, no, it's not
 * 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.. I don't even know what this is trying to achieve the only time Trump did anything significant politically was when he was affiliated with the republican party
 * 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. '''New York and New Jersey has been safe Democrat territory for a long time, you don't what you are talking about. Furthermore Gerrymandering in the United States, REDMAP.
 * 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. Citation needed 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 richest man in the US and indeed the world was at the time of your comment Elon Musk and he supported republican's during the 2022 United States elections The suppression of opposing views as of 2018-2022 is now perfectly acceptable, if not encouraged. Citation Needed 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. No it doesn't The only mainstream "conservative" media outlets that remain are basically just coastal elite "Limousine Liberals" LARPING as conservatives for pay from Newscorp. Again Fox News Most are even registered Democrats. So Tucker Carlson is a democrat? I doubt it - Citation Needed The rest have all been removed. Citation Needed
 * 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??]] 'Lincoln wasn't resisting anything he was against slavery committed by democrat slaves in the south prior to and during th United States Civil War Many significant political shifts have been made by republicans see Trumpism
 * I welcome any input here or parallels to other nations as far a the true definition of a one/single party state. It's not Watch Atlas791 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I welcome any input here or parallels to other nations as far a the true definition of a one/single party state. It's not Watch Atlas791 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @966.248.107.82 "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Shut up, tard. --Miiyooh (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

De-facto one party states
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)


 * I think this is a deep flaw in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the entire section should just be removed. The examples given are just too open to interpretation. At least everyone can agree that de jure places like the DPRK and Cuba are one-party-states, as soon as you start throwing in "authoritarian ersatz democracy" stuff you basically just turn this into a never-ending battleground and opinion piece for "Oh I think Russia's a one-party state!" "I think they're not!" sorta back and forth uselessness.
 * Dominant-party already has a page. I think it more than encompasses the situation given that logically, all dominant-party states are 'de facto one-party states' by default. It's just superfluous. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I partially agree. If there's no standard for what constitutes a de facto one-party state, it open the page up to whatever bias ethnic opportunists want to push. Japan and Paraguay are among the more absurd entries in the section, where Russia is one of the more absurd omissions. 2600:1003:B05F:487A:2C80:C8B2:8543:D288 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Pressure group 102.88.36.46 (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Further Representation in "De Facto" One Party States
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)


 * Bluntly, I still think that the entire section should just be deleted and just mention that "dominant-party states are often considered de-facto one-party states" and leave it there. Otherwise, it's just going to be a slinging contest of people adding and removing countries. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 06:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * agreed - it makes more sense if the dominant-party system article is the home for those discussions/tables Superb Owl (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Move Mexico to Former One-Party States
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)


 * @MaxGame5o I agree, but i believe it's still up to discussion wheter it should be added to a separate list for former de facto one party state, or if it would simply oversaturate the page with tables. I have a talk page just for this type of discussion. Nknka (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is correct, in fact before you had to have permission from the government to form political parties (leaving it in the middle of a de facto and de iure legal one-party system). ComradeHektor (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Venezuela ("Anti-fascist law")
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.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-02/-anti-fascism-law-to-tighten-crackdown-on-venezuelan-opposition

-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)


 * Additionally, a "Committee Against Fascism" will be formed separately from the National Assembly to review each case. In effect, this is a state ideology. ComradeHektor (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Concept
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. Others argue that the one party is the vanguard of the people, being its most politically aware members, and therefore the party's right to rule cannot be legitimately questioned. 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.

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. Leon Trotsky argued that he and Lenin had intended to lift the ban on the opposition parties such as the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries as soon as the economic and social conditions of Soviet Russia had improved.

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). 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.Examples of this are the National Front in former East Germany and the Democratic Front for the Reunification of Korea in 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.

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.

Most one-party states have been ruled by one of the following:


 * 1) A party which supports the ideology of Marxism–Leninism and vanguardism (sometimes described as "communist states", such as the Soviet Union)
 * 2) A party which supports a nationalist or fascist ideology (such as the Kingdom of Italy under the National Fascist Party or Germany under the Nazi Party)
 * 3) A party that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.

Superb Owl (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

North Korea, China and others...
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)


 * That sounds more like a Dominant-party system.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. A "dominant-party system" implies that there are still opposition parties and they run against the ruling party. That isn't the case in China, the DPRK, or in certain countries in the past (like the GDR) where the other parties run on the same electoral lists as the ruling party and recognize the latter's leading role in the state and society. --Ismail (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)