Talk:History of socialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shouldn't there be some discussion of Ferdinand Lassalle on this page? I'm not sure where to fit him in, but he deserves at least some mention. john 06:54, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Done. --Christofurio 18:33, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
Moved to History of socialism. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). -- Rbellin|Talk 02:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Easier to Detect?
I'm afraid I'm not at all clear what this means. "Third world socialism is certainly easier to detect than that of the first world by events such as the triumph of the Uruguayan left in 2004 that consolidated the so called South American Leftist Front which includes the democratically elected governments ...."
Are we talking about 3d world and 1st world socialism as different possible interpretations of that election? And is the editor who added this sentence saying that the former interpretation is much more plausible than the latter? Does that make this original research? --Christofurio
[edit] Missing topic: Socialism in the West
Several economic programs in the United States, and possibly other countries, were supported by socialists and reflect a socialist agenda, including the progressive income tax, social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, &tc. A section on the impact, and the views for and against these programs (and whether and/or to what extent they are socialistic) in the United States and other western countries would improve the depth of this article. RudolfRadna
[edit] Socialism in smaller countries such as Holland?
I think it could be interesting to have a section on socialism in smaller western european countries such as Holland.
[edit] Terminology?!
Terminology problems??
According to Marxist-Leninist terminology (which I don't accept as valid B.T.W.) socialism refers to a state of society, and communism as the next state. The chapter Socialism and Communism (1917-39) is about the Social Democrat versus the Communist movements.
According to Marxist anachronistic terminology (as opposed to the Marxist-Leninist one), social democrats and communists are two mutually cooperating kinds of socialists.
I think the title Socialism and Communism (1917-39)' should be some such as Social Democrats versus Communists (1917-39).
[said rursus: tomas.kindahl@comhem.se]
[edit] Removed views wrongly attributed to Marx
I have once again removed this paragraph:
In Marx's theory, "socialism" referred to the stage of history and class structure immediately following the revolution, in which power would pass to the proletariat. According to Marx, once private property had been abolished, the state would then "wither away," and humanity would move on to a higher stage of society, "communism." This distinction continues to be used by Marxists, and is the cause of much confusion. No Marxist, for example, ever claimed that the Soviet Union was a communist society, even though it was ruled by a Communist Party for 70 years. The name of the party is not meant to reflect the name of the social system.
The above is not Marx's theory and, contrary to what Christofurio thinks, it most certainly wasn't an "unwise deletion" on my part. Marx and Engels didn't differentiate between "socialism" and "communism" in this way. In fact, I have found no evidence to suggest they made any distinction between the two terms at all (the preface to the 1888 English edition of the Communist Manifesto hints at why they chose "communist" instead of "socialist" in the title). A quick read of chapter one of Critique of the Gotha Programme will also show that Marx didn't even suggest two phases.
It may be better to make it clear in the article that it's a common misconception as this may keep it from reappearing in later edits. Hydrostatic 04:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
