Συζήτηση:Λαϊκή δημοκρατία (μαρξισμός - λενινισμός)

There has NEVER been Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία, as you describe it, in Poland. There has been a system with more or less terror, but always antidemocratic system. Therefore propaganda of that system is now officially concidered as a crime and it happened in a democratic, parliamentary procedure. Therefore please do NOT give false information to uniformed people, becouse it is NOT the aim of Wiki. --Dimkoa 06:21, 5 Φεβρουαρίου 2010 (UTC)

The very bad job is, that when citizens of that countries will get here, as me, and they read first what the Laiki Dimokratia should be... in your words... they'll get angry, with your list of countries... Becouse Poland has been still the less "tromocratic" of that countries. And to call such terroristic systems "dimokratia" is the same kind of a black propaganda, as colonel Papadopoulos did with "Elliniki Dimokratia".

I am legally entitled to wish you, to delete Poland from the list, becouse it is arleady forbiden (by the large majority of Parliament), to persuade any propaganda, connected with the previous, crime state system in Poland. In other way, you are allowed to propagate communism (in connection with the name of Poland), but not that kind of "real communism"... By calling that system the "Laiki Dimokratia", you both lie and you harm the whole idea of the Dimokratia.

And by the way... in the reality, that countries has been a colonies of Russia, with just a bit more freedom, than some of "Soviet Republics". Therefore you should state them on the lists of "Colonialism" and not any kind of "Democracy".

Why don't you protest against the English Wikipedia too? Copying from the article "Poland": The People's Republic of Poland (Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa) was officially proclaimed in 1952. Is this inaccurate?? --Ttzavaras^{συζήτηση} 09:42, 5 Φεβρουαρίου 2010 (UTC)

Peple's Republic of... was the name of the state, implemented by foreign ocupants. Same as "Greek State" during the Nazi ocupation 1941-1944 (with Security Batalions as it's armed forces). OK ? But thank you for a tip :)

By the way, I don't mean politics on Wiki. Just a true and interesting info for all sides, especially if the history is discussed. In Poland I try to clear the Greek names and history, from false... --Dimkoa 15:28, 5 Φεβρουαρίου 2010 (UTC) Well, it's arleady corrected on English Wiki, thanks again --Dimkoa 07:55, 6 Φεβρουαρίου 2010 (UTC)

Σοσιαλιστικό κράτος και κομμουνισμός

"αμιγή σοσιαλιστική (δηλαδή κομουνιστική) κοινωνική οργάνωση και οικονομική οργάνωση." Αυτό έχει συζητηθεί αλλού και είναι λάθος. Αφαιρώ την παρένθεση και την αντικαθιστώ με μία ορθότερη πρόταση από την εισαγωγή του κομμουνισμός. --JohnMad 12:55, 21 Ιουλίου 2010 (UTC)

JohnMad το θέμα είναι ότι εδώ δεν είναι πολιτική θεωρία, είναι πραγματικά κράτη τα οποία ήταν (και είναι κάποια από τα ακόμη έχοντα παρόμοιο καθεστώς, βλέπε Βόρεια Κορέα) δικτατορίες, ορισμένες "του χειρίστου", να πούμε, είδους. Δε ξέρω νομίζω ότι η προηγούμενη εκδοχή ήταν καλύτερη, αν και έγινε με βιαστική διατύπωση μετά από παρέμβαση με αυτόματη μετάφραση ενός ούγγρου ή πολωνού δε θυμάμαι (δες πιο πάνω).--vanakaris 13:47, 21 Ιουλίου 2010 (UTC)

Η φράση που άλλαξες δε βγάζει νόημα. Οι λαϊκές δημοκρατίες για τους σταλνικούς ας πούμε ΗΤΑΝ η δικτατορία του προλεταριάτου. Για τους τροτσκιστές, για παράδειγμα, δεν ήταν ούτε καν αυτο. Κομμουνισμός πάντως δεν ήταν για κάνέναν. Τώρα το ότι πετάχτηκε ένας άσχετος Πολωνός να μας πει ότι δεν ήταν δημοκρατίες δε νομίζω ότι ενδιαφέρει ιδιαίτερα για την ορθότητα του άρθρου. --JohnMad

Mr. John Mad... maybe you don't know that, but there has been a freedom of discussion in Poland of 70-ties... and 80-ties... how it should be done and how it is and why it is so. You seem to have known quite litle about that, but you are showing yourself as the only expert about "λαϊκή δημοκρατία" in practice. And you call me άσχετος Πολωνός ? Who is really άσχετος here ? --Dimkoa 19:01, 17 Σεπτεμβρίου 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was not about yout intervention, regarding "Peoples' Republics" not being democratic (I agree, although it should not be stated in such a non-neutral way), but about changes in the article by another editor (supposedly based on your comment), regarding their "communist" nature. --JohnMad